Carmen G. v. Rogelio D.

Full title: In re CARMEN G., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ROGELIO D.…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 29, 2012

100 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

955 N.Y.S.2d 14

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8227

Opinion

2012-11-29

In re CARMEN G., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ROGELIO D., Respondent–Appellant.

Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for respondent.

TOM

Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the child.

TOM, J.P., SAXE, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Diane Costanzo, Referee), entered on or about July 7, 2011, which granted petitioner mother's petition to relocate from Manhattan to Virginia with the parties' minor child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no reason to disturb the court's findings ( see Matter of Koegler v. Woodard, 96 A.D.3d 454, 455, 946 N.Y.S.2d 139 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Indeed, the court consideredall of the relevant factors and properly concluded that the proposed relocation would serve the subject child's best interests ( see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ). Although the child has a loving relationship with both parties, petitioner has been the child's primary caregiver and has been responsible for his day-to-day routine. Further, petitioner showed that a move to Virginia would improve the child's quality of life. In addition, both petitioner and her current husband are committed to fostering a relationship between the child and respondent father ( see Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner, 96 A.D.3d 566, 567, 947 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept. 2012] ).Although petitioner's relocation inevitably will have an impact upon respondent's ability to spend time with the child, the liberal visitation schedule, including extended visits during the summer and school vacations, will allow for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between respondent and the child ( see Matter of Jennings v. Yillah–Chow, 84 A.D.3d 1376, 1377, 924 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2d Dept. 2011];see also Matter of Aruty v. Mormando, 70 A.D.3d 683, 892 N.Y.S.2d 875 [2d Dept. 2010] ).