Opinion
2017–01083 Docket Nos. V-27460-09, V-27461-09, V-27961-09, V-27962-09
12-26-2018
In the Matter of Samira MRSIC, Appellant-Respondent, v. KWAK YEN KWAN, Respondent-Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kwak Yen Kwan, Respondent-Appellant, v. Samira Mrsic, Appellant-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
Austin I. Idehen, Jamaica, NY, for appellant-respondent. David Zaslavsky, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Eva D. Stein and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
Austin I. Idehen, Jamaica, NY, for appellant-respondent.
David Zaslavsky, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Eva D. Stein and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties, who were never married, are the parents of twins born in 2007. Since the parties separated, the children have resided with the mother, with the father availing himself of parental access. The mother filed a petition seeking sole custody of the children as well as permission to relocate with them to Florida, and the father filed a petition seeking sole custody. After a hearing, the Family Court granted that branch of the mother's petition which was for sole custody, denied that branch of the mother's petition which was for permission to relocate with the children to Florida, and denied the father's petition for sole custody. The mother appeals, and the father cross-appeals.
The record supports the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the custody of their mother, who was their primary caregiver. The record also supports the court's determination that the mother did not meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move to Florida would be in the children'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 ; Quinn v. Quinn, 134 A.D.3d 688, 689, 20 N.Y.S.3d 427 ). The father took advantage of his parental access rights, forming a bond with the children which would be impaired by the move.
Accordingly, the determination of the Family Court has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Woodson v. Woodson, 163 A.D.3d 833, 81 N.Y.S.3d 477 ).
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.