From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amato v. Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1994
202 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 14, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is the general policy of this State that a move by the custodial parent to a distant locale will not be permitted when it would effectively deprive the noncustodial parent of regular access to the child of the marriage (see, Leslie v. Leslie, 180 A.D.2d 620, 621; Ladizhensky v. Ladizhensky, 184 A.D.2d 756). This policy is based upon the principle that visitation is a joint right of both the noncustodial parent and the child (see, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170), and upon the premise that the best interests of the children would be furthered by their being nurtured and guided by both of their natural parents (see, Rybicki v. Rybicki, 176 A.D.2d 867; Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, affd 56 N.Y.2d 938). However the general rule against relocation is not absolute and it will be permitted upon a showing of "exceptional circumstances" (see, Matter of Radford v. Propper, 190 A.D.2d 93).

We agree with the wife that she has demonstrated "exceptional circumstances", and that the best interests of the two infant children to the marriage warrant her relocation to Lewiston, Idaho (see, Hemphill v. Hemphill, 169 A.D.2d 29). During the marriage, the parties led a transient lifestyle and established no long-term domicile (see, Von Ohlen v. Von Ohlen, 178 A.D.2d 592). Further, the wife established an economic necessity to move to Idaho (see, Hemphill v. Hemphill, supra, at 34). She has been unable to find affordable housing and child care on her limited $25,000 salary. In Idaho, the wife could be closer to her family and have reduced living expenses. Her mother has testified that she could provide her with no-cost housing, full-time employment, health insurance, and assist with child care (see, Hemphill v Hemphill, supra).

We have considered the plaintiff husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Amato v. Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1994
202 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Amato v. Amato

Case Details

Full title:JOHN AMATO, Appellant, v. CARRIE-LEE AMATO, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 14, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 51

Citing Cases

Wisloh-Silverman v. Dono

727), we find that the mother established by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's best interests…

Santy v. Santy

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with the Supreme Court that the…