You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD...
,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the denial of father’s petition for permission to relocate with the children was not supported by the evidence:

The father’s testimony demonstrated that he was unable to continue renting his grandmother’s house in New York, where he and the children had been residing, and that the mother provided only $25 per month in child support for both children … . The father’s testimony also demonstrated that, if permitted to relocate, he would be able to obtain employment in his field of experience with at least the same salary as he earned in New York and that his living expenses would be lower in South Carolina than they were in New York … . Additionally, the father would have support from extended family in South Carolina, including the paternal grandmother, a certified behavioral analyst and special education administrator who has assisted the father in addressing one of the children’s special needs … .

With respect to the mother’s relationship with the children, the hearing testimony demonstrated that the father has been the children’s primary caregiver since 2017 and that the mother was not involved in the children’s day-to-day lives, education, or healthcare … . Although the father’s relocation will have an impact upon the mother’s ability to spend time with the children, the Family Court can fashion an appropriate parental access schedule that will allow the mother to foster a relationship with the children … . Matter of Scotto v Alexander, 2024 NY Slip Op 05348, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a petition to relocate to another state with the children should be granted.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY, DEFENDANT THEREFORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF MITIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
The Amount of Alcohol Consumed by Defendant and the Extent of His Intoxication at the Time of the Vehicle-Accident Evinced “Wanton and Reckless” Conduct Which Supported a Punitive-Damages Award
Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed Non-Opt-Out Class Action—Shareholders Who Objected to the Settlement Were Entitled to Opt Out to Preserve Their Damages Claims
THE LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT CREATED AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER THE EASEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED TO ACCESS A PUBLIC ROAD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH TRADER JOE’S APPARENTLY DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT OCCUPY, CONTROL OR MAKE SPECIAL USE OF THE PARKING LOT; TRADER JOE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT WHEN IT BECAME VACANT DID NOT VIOLATE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE WERE WARRANTED;...