| Matter of Friedman v Rome |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09775 [46 AD3d 682] |
| December 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amanda Friedman, Formerly Known as AmandaVan Holt, Appellant, v David Rome, Respondent. |
—[*1] John A. Gemelli, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent. Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, N.Y., Law Guardian.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), datedJanuary 18, 2007, as denied her petition for leave to relocate with the subject children toCalifornia.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties are divorced and have joint legal custody of their two young children. The motherhas physical custody and has been a full time mother to the children since shortly after the partiesseparated. The father has visitation with the children every week and every other weekend, whichhe has never missed. He also attends parent-teacher conferences and is involved in the children'sextracurricular and school activities. The mother seeks to relocate the children to California,where her current husband has moved for an employment opportunity.
The record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determinationdenying the mother's petition for leave to relocate with the children to California (see Matter of Brzozowski vBrzozowski, 30 AD3d 517, 518 [2006]; see generally Matter of Turnure v Turnure, 37 AD3d 727, 728[2007]; Matter of Magwood vMartinez, 35 AD3d 743 [2006]). When reviewing a custodial parent's request torelocate, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the children (see Matter ofTropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Brzozowski v Brzozowski, 30AD3d [*2]at 518; Matter of Confort v Nicolai, 309 AD2d861, 862 [2003]). Although the mother sought to relocate to meet the demands of her secondmarriage, which are "valid motives" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 540), themother failed to demonstrate that her reasons justify "the uprooting of the children from the onlyarea they have ever known, where they are thriving academically and socially, and where arelocation would qualitatively affect their relationship with their father" (Matter of Confort vNicolai, 309 AD2d 861, 861 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter ofMascola v Mascola, 251 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]). Thus, the Family Court, in considering therelevant factors, properly determined that relocation was not in the children's best interests(Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]; Matter of Brzozowski v Brzozowski, 30 AD3d 517, 518 [2006];Matter of Confort v Nicolai, 309 AD2d 861, 862 [2003]; Matter of Mascola vMascola, 251 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Santucci and Lifson, JJ.,concur.