Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties in this action were married in August 1973 and have three children: Michael, born on July 7, 1975, Stephen, born on July 18, 1979, and Sean, born on January 16, 1985. Although the husband did not oppose the wife's action for divorce, he opposed her application to relocate with the three children to Florida.
"Where a proposed move may, or is likely to, deprive a noncustodial parent of regular and meaningful access to and interaction with his or her children, two further tests must be satisfied by the custodial parent wishing to relocate. First, the relocating parent must establish the existence of exceptional circumstances to warrant the relocation * * *
"Further, even if it can be shown that exceptional circumstances exist, the relocating parent must then establish that the relocation is in the best interests of the child" (Matter of Radford v. Propper, 190 A.D.2d 93, 100).
In the instant case, the wife has sustained her burden of showing that there exist exceptional or compelling circumstances to justify moving the children to Florida. The wife's employment opportunities on Long Island are limited, and she can earn $240 per week working 30 hours per week for her uncle's insurance agency in Florida. Furthermore, certain financial considerations, such as rent-free housing and free baby-sitting services to be provided to the wife by various members of her family in Florida and unavailable to her in Long Island, justify the move (see, e.g., Blundell v. Blundell, 150 A.D.2d 321; Klein v. Klein, 93 A.D.2d 807; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 91 A.D.2d 628). We also take note of the emotional support readily available to the wife from members of her family in Florida, which is totally lacking in Long Island (see, Klein v. Klein, supra).
In addition, we find that the wife's proposed move to Florida would, in fact, be in the children's best interests. The wife's family, with whom the children have a close relationship, lives in Florida. Although their paternal grandmother lives in Long Island, the children are not close to her and see her infrequently. The husband has a poor relationship with one of his children. Also, owing to his business and personal interests, he does not spend substantial time with the children. Lastly, the husband's daughter from a previous marriage also lives in Florida, and she is close to her half-brothers.
For all these reasons, we find that the determination of the Supreme Court to grant the wife's application to relocate was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
Contrary to the husband's contention on appeal, we further find that the court's awards of counsel and expert fees were not excessive. The court directed the husband to pay only a part of the wife's counsel fees and expert fees, and did not improvidently exercise its discretion in doing so (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881; Brancoveanu v. Brancoveanu, 177 A.D.2d 614). Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.