Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: KIMBERLY T., Petitioner–Respondent, v. RAFAEL E. M., Respondent–Appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert T. Johnson, J.), entered on or about September 18, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, directed that respondent father is responsible for arranging and paying for the subject child's return trip after his summer and holiday visitation trips to petitioner mother Kimberly T. in North Carolina, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the father to cover the costs associated with returning the child from North Carolina after the mother's parenting time (see Matter of Ivan R. v. Lisandra F., 188 A.D.3d 543, 544, 132 N.Y.S.3d 615 [1st Dept. 2020]; Matter of Casarotti v. Casarotti, 107 A.D.3d 1336, 1340, 967 N.Y.S.2d 783 [3d Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 3213829 [2013]; Matter of Fegadel v. Anderson, 40 A.D.3d 1091, 1093, 836 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2d Dept. 2007]).
Contrary to the father's contention, the record was adequate for Family Court to determine the parties' capacity to bear the costs of the child's transportation. At the time of the hearing, both parties were working for rideshare services; the father was the child's main provider; and the mother was missing parenting time with the child because she could not afford the transportation costs. Accordingly, there was a sound and substantial basis for Family Court's allocation of the responsibility of transportation between the parties (see Matter of Latoya B. v. Marvin D., 191 A.D.3d 1123, 1125–1126, 141 N.Y.S.3d 185 [3d Dept. 2021]). Moreover, Family Court's allocation of the transportation costs to facilitate the mother's parenting time with the child was in the child's best interests, which is the overarching consideration in questions of child custody (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982]; Lo Presti v. Lo Presti, 40 N.Y.2d 522, 527, 387 N.Y.S.2d 412, 355 N.E.2d 372 [1976]; see also Matter of Maranda WW. v. Michael XX., 219 A.D.3d 1590, 1594, 196 N.Y.S.3d 213 [3d Dept. 2023]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5421
Decided: December 18, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)