| Matter of Martino v Ramos |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05865 [64 AD3d 657] |
| July 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Dawn Martino, Appellant, v Peter Ramos,Jr., Respondent. |
—[*1] Judy Poznik, Water Mill, N.Y., for respondent. Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechtrecker, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 15, 2008, which, aftera hearing, denied her petition to modify an undated order of the same court (Kelley, Ct. Atty.Ref.), inter alia, awarding her sole custody of the parties' child, to allow her to relocate fromNew York to South Carolina with the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be onthe best interests of the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996];Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]). "Relocation may be permitted if thecustodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is inthe child's best interests" (Matter ofSchreurs v Johnson, 27 AD3d 654, 655 [2006]; see Noble v Noble, 52 AD3d 490, 491 [2008]).
When evaluating whether a proposed move will serve a child's best interests, the factors tobe considered "include, but are certainly not limited to each parent's reasons for seeking oropposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial andnoncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's futurecontact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's lifemay be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibilityof preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitablevisitation arrangements" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741; seeMatter of Schreurs v Johnson, 27 AD3d at 655).
Despite the multitude of factors that may properly be considered in the context of arelocation petition, "the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and thenoncustodial parent will remain a central concern" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2dat 739).[*2]"Indeed, even where the move would leave thenoncustodial parent with what may be considered 'meaningful access,' there is still a need toweigh the effect of the quantitative and qualitative losses that naturally will result against suchother relevant factors as the custodial parent's reasons for wanting to relocate and the benefitsthat the child may enjoy or the harm that may ensue if the move is or is not permitted" (id.at 739).
In this case, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Family Court found that themother failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that relocation was in the child's best interest (see Matter of Rotering v Rotering, 6AD3d 718 [2004]). It is undisputed that the father has exercised his visitation almost everyweekend since the parties' separation and has remained active in the child's life (see Matter of Friedman v Rome, 46AD3d 682, 683 [2007]; Matter ofGanzenmuller v Rivera, 40 AD3d 756, 757 [2007]; Matter of Huston v Jones,252 AD2d 502, 503 [1998]). Although the mother presented evidence to show thatrelocation to South Carolina would decrease her housing costs, her reasons for moving did not "'justify the uprooting of the [child] from the only area [he has] ever known, where [he is] thrivingacademically and socially, and where a relocation would qualitatively affect [his] relationshipwith [his] father' " (Matter of Confort v Nicolai, 309 AD2d 861, 861 [2003]; seeMatter of Friedman v Rome, 46 AD3d at 683; Matter of Mascola v Mascola, 251AD2d 414, 415 [1998]). Accordingly, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for theFamily Court's determination that the mother failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of theevidence, that the proposed relocation would be in the child's best interest (see Scannevin v Scannevin, 51 AD3d901, 902 [2008]; Matter of Giraldov Gomez, 49 AD3d 645 [2008]; Rutigliano v Rutigliano, 5 AD3d 581 [2004]; Kime v Kime,302 AD2d 564 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.