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: LORIE SPORTELLO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL A. SPORTELLO, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JESSICA MANIERI, LAW GUARDIAN, HERKIMER, FOR TYLER R.S. AND MICHAEL V.S.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Family Court properly dismissed the petition seeking permission for the parties' children to relocate with petitioner mother. At the time of the hearing on the petition, the mother did not know where she would be relocating and thus could not provide any information concerning where the children would live or the schools that they would attend. Thus, the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing that the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Seyler v. Hasfurter, 61 AD3d 1437). With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the mother's petition seeking to modify respondent father's visitation rights by requiring that the presently unsupervised visitation be supervised. The mother failed to meet her burden of establishing that the father was an abusive or unfit parent (see Matter of Ritz v. Otero, 265 A.D.2d 560), and the court's determination is entitled to deference where, as here, it has a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Custer v. Slater, 2 AD3d 1227). With respect to the order in appeal No. 3, which dismissed the mother's violation petition, the mother has not raised any contentions concerning that order in her brief on appeal, and thus we deem any such contentions abandoned (see Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 08-02431
Decided: February 11, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)