From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rheingold v. Rheingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 2004
4 A.D.3d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-07601, 2003-07602.

Decided February 9, 2004.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 31, 2000, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated August 1, 2003, as directed a hearing to aid in the determination of her motion to relocate with the parties' children, and (2) from an order of the same court dated August 6, 2003, which appointed a law guardian for the children.

Ursula A. Gangemi, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Bernstein Jaffe, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steven C. Bernstein of counsel), for respondent.

Robert E. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE and WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order dated August 1, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated August 6, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

Although the parties agreed in their stipulation, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, that after August 1, 2001, the mother could relocate to within a 40-mile radius of the marital residence, such an agreement is not dispositive, but rather, is a factor to be considered along with all of the other factors the hearing court should consider when determining whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children ( see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741 n 2; Matter of Church v. Cohen, 266 A.D.2d 285; Savage v. Morrison, 262 A.D.2d 1077; Carlson v. Carlson, 248 A.D.2d 1026, 1028). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly set the matter down for a hearing. Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in appointing a law guardian to assist in determining the best interests of the children.

We have not considered the report submitted by the law guardian on this appeal ( see generally Weiglhofer v. Weiglhofer, 1 A.D.3d 786; Matter of Rueckert v. Reilly, 282 A.D.2d 608).

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rheingold v. Rheingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 2004
4 A.D.3d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rheingold v. Rheingold

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH J. RHEINGOLD, appellant, v. ALAN RHEINGOLD, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 9, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Schwartz v. Schwartz

"The trial court's credibility determinations are entitled to considerable deference on appeal" (…

Jaimes v. Gyerko

The Family Court should not have granted the relief requested by the mother and summarily dismissed the…