| Matter of Harrsch v Jesser |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04791 [74 AD3d 811] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Angela H. Harrsch, Respondent v NeilJesser, Respondent. Lisa Goldman, as Attorney for the Children, NonpartyAppellant. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the attorney for the children appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered May 26, 2009,which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was for leave torelocate with the parties' children to the State of Washington.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the contention of the attorney for the children, the mother established by apreponderance of the evidence that relocation to the State of Washington was in the best interestsof the parties' three children (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740-741[1996]). "[E]conomic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive groundfor permitting the proposed move" (id. at 739; see Matter of Wirth v Wirth, 56 AD3d 787, 787 [2008]; Millerv Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 366 [2002]; Matter of Malandro v Lido, 229 AD2d 541, 542[1996]). The mother demonstrated that she could not meet the family's living expenses in NewYork and that the father did not make regular child support payments. She also demonstratedthat, if she were permitted to relocate, she would receive financial assistance, includingassistance in finding employment and housing, from extended family members in the State ofWashington, one of whom had offered her an apartment rent free. The desires of the children,while properly considered, are not determinative (see Matter of Coulter v Scales, 20 AD3d 475, 476 [2005]). Whilethe father's loss of frequent visitation with the children is not insignificant, the visitationschedule allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationship (see Bruno v Bruno, 47AD3d 606, 608 [2008]; Matter ofCooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d 655, 655 [2007]). Since the Family Court's determinationhad a sound and substantial basis in the record, it should not be disturbed (see Matter of Giraldo v Gomez, 49AD3d 645, 645 [2008]; Matter of Coulter v Scales, 20 AD3d at 476).
The remaining contention is not properly before us on this appeal. Mastro, J.P., Eng,Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.