Matter of Cooke v Alaimo
2007 NY Slip Op 07430 [44 AD3d 655]
October 2, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007


In the Matter of Donald Cooke III, Appellant,
v
KimberlyA. Alaimo, Respondent.

[*1]Steven E. Losquadro, P.C., Rocky Point, N.Y., for appellant.

Kimberly A. Alaimo, Port Richey, Florida, respondent pro se.

Elizabeth A. Pfister, Center Moriches, N.Y., Law Guardian.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), dated September 27, 2006,which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's cross petition for leave to relocate the childto Florida and awarded her an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,500.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deletingthe provision thereof awarding the mother an attorney's fee in the sum of $7,500; as so modified,the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court's determination that relocation of the parties' child to Florida was in thebest interests of the child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (seeMatter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d 1091 [2007]; Tornheim v Tornheim, 28 AD3d535 [2006]). While the father's loss of midweek and alternate weekend visitation is notinsignificant, the visitation schedule allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationshipbetween the father and the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 727; Matter of Wisloh-Silverman v Dono,39 AD3d 555, 557 [2007]).

However, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother anattorney's fee in the sum of $7,500 since neither party filed an affidavit of net worth as requiredby 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k) (2). Thus, no fee award was warranted in this matter. Under the [*2]circumstances of this case, we do not consider it appropriate toremit this matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing (see DomesticRelations Law § 237 [b]; cf. Frost v Goldberg, 31 AD3d 374 [2006]; Kane v Rudansky, 23 AD3d 349,350 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.