You are here: / / STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO...
,

STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that a stipulation allowing the mother to relocate cannot be put into effect absent a hearing examining the best interests of the children:

On March 13, 2014, the parties executed a custody stipulation that was so-ordered and incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce. The parties agreed to joint custody of their two children, with the mother being the primary residential custodian. The stipulation permitted the mother to relocate within 55 miles of her current residence without the express written permission of the father or a court order. …

The Family Court should not have granted the relief requested by the mother and summarily dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). “No agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which a weighing of all the factors involved shows to be in the child’s best interest” … . Thus, although the parties agreed in their stipulation that the mother could relocate to within 55 miles of her residence in Mamaroneck, such an agreement is not dispositive, but rather, is a factor to be considered along with all of the other factors a hearing court should consider when determining whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children … . Further, the father made an evidentiary showing that the mother’s proposed move might not be in the children’s best interests … . Where, as here, facts essential to the best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is require … . Matter of Jaimes v Gyerko, 2018 NY Slip Op 07125, Second Dept 10-24-18

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELOCATION (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, STIPULATION, CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, RELOCATION, STIPULATION ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE, HEARING TO ASSESS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
AN AGGRIEVED PARTY NEED NOT SHOW PECUNIARY LOSS TO WARRANT AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS OR ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT.
WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT
PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A COURT WITH AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CRACK (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY OWNER, MCWHITE, HAD BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION AND HER INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WHICH FALSELY NAMED HER AS A DEFENDANT; THE REFEREE’S DEED-HOLDER DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE AGAINST MCWHITE AND MCWHITE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER QUIET TITLE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CONTINUING TORT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN OF HARASSMENT SPANNING 13 YEARS.
THE JURY NOTE INDICATED THE REQUEST WAS FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PHONE CALL, BUT THE JUDGE DESCRIBED THE NOTE AS A REQUEST FOR THE PHONE CALL AND PROVIDED THE JURY WITH THE RECORDING OF THE CALL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (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

TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO... IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA)...