Matter of Aruty v Mormando
2010 NY Slip Op 00842 [70 AD3d 683]
February 2, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010


In the Matter of Dana Aruty, Respondent,
v
PaulMormando, Appellant.

[*1]Robert Martinelli, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the child.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Krauss, J.), dated August 21, 2008, which, after ahearing, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the parties' child and, in effect, forleave to relocate to the State of Virginia with the child, and denied his cross petition for solecustody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Family Court's determination that awarding the mother sole custody of the parties' childand permitting her to relocate with the child to the State of Virginia is in the best interests of thechild is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea vTropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40AD3d 1091, 1093 [2007]; Matter of Zayas v Barr, 304 AD2d 671, 672 [2003]). Themother demonstrated that the move would enhance the child's life economically, socially, andeducationally (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741). Further, theposition of the attorney for the child supported the Family Court's determination (see Matterof Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d at 1093; Matter of Kozlowski v Mangialino, 36 AD3d 916, 917 [2007]).

While the father's loss of frequent visitation is not insignificant, the visitation scheduleprovided by the court allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the fatherand the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 742; Matter of Cooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d655 [2007]).

The father's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson andRoman, 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.