Opinion
251
March 15, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Family Court, Steuben County (Furfure, J.), entered October 20, 2000, which denied the petition, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to modify visitation.
D.J. J.A. Cirando, ESQS., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Alice Jane Hooker, Law Guardian, Canandaigua, for Samantha H.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, SCUDDER, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Family Court properly found that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her relocation with the parties' child from Steuben County to South Carolina is in the child's best interests ( see, Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741; Sawyer v. Sawyer, 242 A.D.2d 969, 970). The court properly considered the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea ( supra, at 740-741) and found that, although the relocation would benefit the child economically, her relationship with respondent would be adversely affected because a reasonable visitation schedule would not be feasible in view of the distance between the two locations, the financial circumstances of the parties and respondent's work schedule ( cf., Matter of Gillard v. Gillard, 241 A.D.2d 966, 968-969).
Petitioner contends for the first time on appeal that the hearing was tainted because the Law Guardian had a conflict of interest, and thus her contention is not preserved for our review ( see, Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984).