Opinion
2012-12-21
In the Matter of Erica WILLIAMS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Shawn EPPS, Respondent-respondent. (Appeal No. 1.)
Alan Birnholz, East Amherst, for Petitioner–Appellant. Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Respondent.
Alan Birnholz, East Amherst, for Petitioner–Appellant. Elizabeth Ciambrone, Buffalo, for Respondent–Respondent.
Patricia M. McGrath, Attorney for the Child, Lockport, for Rylie E.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In appeal No. 1, petitioner mother appeals from an order denying her petition seeking permission for the parties' child to relocate with her to Atlanta, Georgia. We conclude that Family Court properly denied the petition. Although the mother testified that she was offered a position as a hair stylist at a salon in Atlanta, there was little evidence adduced concerning the salary, benefits, hours of work, and other incidentals of the employment. In addition, as of the time of the hearing, the child had regular and meaningful access with respondent father, as well as with the child's maternal and paternal extended family. Inasmuch as the mother “failed to establish that the lives of the mother and the child would be ‘enhanced economically [or] educationally by the move’ ” (Matter of Holtz v. Weaver, 94 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 943 N.Y.S.2d 363, quoting Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145), and the credible evidence supports the court's determination that the child's relationship with the father and other relatives in the Buffalo area would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation ( see Matter of Webb v. Aaron, 79 A.D.3d 1761, 1761–1762, 913 N.Y.S.2d 847), the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing that relocation is in the child's best interests ( see Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145;Matter of Seyler v. Hasfurter, 61 A.D.3d 1437, 1437, 877 N.Y.S.2d 722).
In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order dismissing her violation petition. The mother raises no issues with respect to that order in her brief, and we therefore deem any such issues abandoned ( see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, 984, 609 N.Y.S.2d 745).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.