You are here: / / MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS...
, , ,

MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; CREDIBILITY ISSUES PLAY NO ROLE AT THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mother had made out a prima facie case for relocating to a different county with the child. The petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed:

“In deciding a motion to dismiss a petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference that can reasonably be drawn therefrom” … . “The question of credibility is irrelevant, and should not be considered” … .

Here, accepting the petitioner’s evidence as true and affording her the benefit of every favorable inference, the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that relocating with the child to Bergen County might be in the child’s best interests … . At the hearing, the petitioner and her spouse testified that they wanted to relocate to Bergen County because they would have family support there and the child liked spending time with family members living in that area. The petitioner further testified that if she were permitted to relocate, she would continue the respondent’s parental access schedule set forth in the stipulation of settlement and would agree to additional parental access for the respondent. We note that the Family Court did not ascertain from the attorney for the child the position of the then 11-year-old child or conduct an in camera interview with the child … . Matter of Fortune v Jasmin, 2024 NY Slip Op 05443, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: In considering a motion to dismiss a petition for a modification of custody credibility issues are irrelevant.​

 

You might also like
FALSE INFORMATION IN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BUT NOT DISMISSAL.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.
Leave to File Late Notice of Claim Should Have Been Granted
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement (Re: Entry of an Apartment) Not Met
Courts Have Discretion to Grant Affirmative Relief in Absence of a Formal Cross-Motion

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

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE... A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH...