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: MARK QUISTORF, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. TONIA M. LEVESQUE, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MATTHEW J. FERO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROCHESTER.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking, inter alia, “sole custody” and “primary residency” of the parties' children after respondent mother relocated to Maine with the children without the father's consent, and the mother cross-petitioned for “primary residency of the children with periods of residency” with the father. The father appeals from an order in which Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother's cross petition. We affirm.
Inasmuch as this case involves an initial custody determination, “it cannot properly be characterized as a relocation case to which the application of the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea (87 N.Y.2d 727, 740–741 [1996] ) need be strictly applied” (Matter of Saperston v. Holdaway, 93 AD3d 1271, 1272, appeal dismissed 19 NY3d 887, 20 NY3d 1052; see Matter of Moore v. Kazacos, 89 AD3d 1546, 1546, lv denied 18 NY3d 806). “Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination” (Saperston, 93 AD3d at 1272; see Matter of Torkildsen v. Torkildsen, 72 AD3d 1405, 1406).
Giving deference to the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that the court's determination to award the mother primary residency of the children has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Cross v. Caswell, 113 AD3d 1107, 1107; Matter of Thillman v. Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625; Salerno v. Salerno, 273 A.D.2d 818, 818). The mother had been the children's primary caretaker since their birth and was more involved in the children's lives than the father. Although the children's relocation arguably has had a negative impact on the children's relationship with the father, “relocation is not a proper basis upon which to award primary physical custody to [the father] ․ inasmuch as the children will need to travel between the parties' two residences regardless of which parent is awarded primary physical [residency]” (Sitts v. Sitts, 74 AD3d 1722, 1723, lv dismissed 15 NY3d 833, lv denied 18 NY3d 801; see Saperston, 93 AD3d at 1272).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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 13–01912
Decided: May 02, 2014
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)