Opinion
10-04-2016
In re CHRISTOPHER E.C., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Ivana K. S., Respondent–Respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Larry Bachner, Jamaica, for respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Larry Bachner, Jamaica, for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer S. Burtt, Court Attorney–Referee), entered on or about October 14, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted respondent mother's application for relocation with the child to Florida, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no reason to disturb the court's findings (see Matter of William G. v. Saline G., 132 A.D.3d 440, 17 N.Y.S.3d 133 [1st Dept.2015] ). The court considered all of the relevant factors and properly concluded that the proposed relocation would serve the child's best interests (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ). Respondent mother has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a move to Florida would improve the quality of the six-year old child's life (see Matter of Kevin McK. v. Elizabeth A.E., 111 A.D.3d 124, 130–131, 972 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept.2013] ). The mother also established that she would continue to foster a relationship between the petitioner father and the child (see Matthew W. v. Meagan R., 68 A.D.3d 468, 891 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2009] ; see e.g. Matter of Damien P.C. v. Jennifer H.S., 57 A.D.3d 295, 296, 869 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 710, 2009 WL 1260207 [2009] ). Although the relocation will have an impact upon the father's ability to spend time with his child, the visitation schedule set by the court will allow for the father and the child to continue to have a meaningful relationship (see Matter of Carmen G. v. Rogelio D., 100 A.D.3d 568, 955 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept.2012] ).