Opinion
2012-08035, Docket Nos. V-11533-06/12T, V-14401-02/12AA.
10-22-2014
In the Matter of José Antonio LAZO, appellant, v. Olga CHERREZ, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Olga Cherrez, respondent, v. José Antonio Lazo, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
José Antonio Lazo, New Hyde Park, N.Y., appellant pro se. Michael E. Lipson, Jericho, N.Y., for respondent. Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
José Antonio Lazo, New Hyde Park, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Michael E. Lipson, Jericho, N.Y., for respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Negron, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated August 2, 2012, which dismissed his petition for a hearing on the mother's proposed relocation to New Jersey with prejudice.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without cost or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination, without a hearing, as to whether it was in the subject children's best interests to relocate to New Jersey with their mother (see Matter of Katz v. Shomron, 116 A.D.3d 777, 982 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; Matter of Law v. Gray, 116 A.D.3d 699, 983 N.Y.S.2d 582 ; Matter of Zaratzian v. Abadir, 105 A.D.3d 1054, 963 N.Y.S.2d 706 ; Matter of Stefas v. Sierra, 104 A.D.3d 952, 960 N.Y.S.2d 914 ). The Family Court conducted more than 16 hearings involving custody and visitation issues between the same parties in which the best interests of the children were paramount, and had the assistance of the attorney for the children, who participated in all the proceedings and supported the determination allowing the mother to relocate. The Family Court also was familiar with the comprehensive reports of the court-appointed forensic evaluator, who separately interviewed the parties and the children, and opined that it was in their best interests for the mother to have custody.
Accordingly, the Family Court's determination not to extend this already protracted litigation by conducting an evidentiary hearing before authorizing the mother to relocate to New Jersey was a provident exercise of discretion, and supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ; Matter of Ortiz v. Ortiz, 118 A.D.3d 800, 987 N.Y.S.2d 431 ; Matter of Hirtz v. Hirtz, 108 A.D.3d 712, 713–714, 969 N.Y.S.2d 553 ; cf. Matter of Said v. Said, 61 A.D.3d 879, 880, 881, 878 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).