CYNTHIA v. JAMES (2006)

Petitioners, the mother and maternal grandmother, commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior custody order by permitting the child to relocate with them from Watertown, New York to Florida.   Petitioners are the joint legal custodians of the subject child.   Contrary to the contention of respondent father, Family Court properly determined that petitioners met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the child's best interests (see Matter of Brockington v. Alexander, 26 A.D.3d 884, 885, 809 N.Y.S.2d 349;  see also Matter of Boyer v. Boyer, 281 A.D.2d 953, 722 N.Y.S.2d 322;  Matter of Daniels v. Daniels, 224 A.D.2d 931, 932, 637 N.Y.S.2d 570;  see generally Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 740-741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145).   Petitioners demonstrated an economic necessity for the proposed move and, “[a]lthough Tropea emphasizes that ‘no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome’ ․, it indicates that ‘economic necessity ․ may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move’ ” (Matter of Stone v. Wyant, 8 A.D.3d 1046, 1046, 778 N.Y.S.2d 816).   Further, the record establishes that respondent has no “accustomed close involvement in the child[ ]'s everyday life” (Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145), and thus we conclude that the need to “give appropriate weight to ․ the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements” does not take precedence over the need to give appropriate weight to the economic necessity for the relocation (id. at 740-741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: