Opinion
12387 Dkt. Nos. V-268-71/15 163/11 Case No. 2019–3075
11-17-2020
In re RAMON R., Petitioner–Appellant, v. CARMEN L., Respondent–Respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Ameya S. Ananth of counsel), for respondent. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the children.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Ameya S. Ananth of counsel), for respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, attorney for the children.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2018, which granted respondent mother's application for sole custody of the subject children and leave to relocate to Colorado with the children, with parenting time to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record supports the court's determination that awarding sole custody to the mother and permitting her to relocate with the children to Colorado is in the children's best interests (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ; Matter of Melissa Marie G. v. John Christopher W., 73 A.D.3d 658, 901 N.Y.S.2d 275 [1st Dept. 2010] ). The court found the father's testimony incredible and properly considered the mother's testimony at an emergency hearing on relocation, as well as the testimony of the subject children and their older siblings at a Lincoln hearing. The evidence supported the court's finding that the mother, who had been the children's primary caregiver, was better able than the father to provide a consistent and stable home environment for the children (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). Permanent relocation from New York, where the mother had been living in shelters with the children after fleeing domestic violence by the father, to Colorado would enhance the lives of the children. In Colorado, the children also had the benefit of continuing their relationship with their older siblings, who turned 18 during the proceedings. Furthermore, the children are well-established in their community and school.
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.