From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rutigliano v. Rutigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-00528.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 17, 2002, the plaintiff mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marano, J.), dated December 21, 2002, which, inter alia, denied her cross motion for permission to relocate with the parties' son to Florida.

Allan S. Botter, Lake Success, N.Y. (Paula Schwartz Frome of counsel), for appellant.

Zornberg Hirsch, Lake Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Barry S. Zornberg of counsel), for respondent.

Chris J. Coschignano, Syosset, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be the best interests of the child ( see Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739; Kime v. Kime, 302 A.D.2d 564; Miller v. Pipia, 297 A.D.2d 362, 365-366). Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination that she should remain in New York and not relocate to Florida with the parties' son.

KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rutigliano v. Rutigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rutigliano v. Rutigliano

Case Details

Full title:JUDI RUTIGLIANO, appellant, v. NICHOLAS RUTIGLIANO, respondent

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Melgar v. Sevilla

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. When reviewing a custodial…

Martino v. Ramos

child's life ( see Matter of Friedman v Rome, 46 AD3d 682, 683; Matter of Ganzenmuller v Rivera, 40 AD3d 756,…