You are here: / / Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical...
,

Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied mother’s petition to relocate. The analytical criteria were described as: “When reviewing a custodial parent’s request for permission to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child … . Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements … . In relocation proceedings, this [the appellate court’s] authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …”. [quotations omitted] Matter of DeCillis v DeCillis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04126, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
Language of Exclusion from Coverage, Including the Phrase “Arising Out Of” Was Not Ambiguous—Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Defendants
THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER” CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO MANAGEMENT COULD BE INTERPRETED TO CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A FALSE TAX RETURN USING DEFENDANT’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND THAT PLAINTIFF STOLE FUNDS FROM THE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DECISION INCLUDES A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HOME-INSPECTION CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE WAS AWARE OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND AGREED TO THEM; THEREFORE THE UNSIGNED CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE AND PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION PROVISION ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED WHEEL STOP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Single Act of Excessive Corporal Punishment Justified Neglect and Derivative... Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email...