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: Melanie ARCURI, respondent, v. Riccardo OSUNA, appellant.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated January 26, 2007, as denied his motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 174 to transfer venue of the proceeding from Suffolk County to Otsego County.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion to transfer venue of the proceeding from Suffolk County to Otsego County is granted, and the Clerk of the Family Court, Suffolk County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Family Court, Otsego County, all papers filed in this proceeding, and certified copies of all minutes and entries.
The father's motion to transfer venue is not barred by the terms of the parties' custody agreement, dated October 28, 2005, which was so-ordered by the Suffolk County Family Court. Moreover, on this record, the father established good cause to transfer the instant proceeding from Suffolk County, where the mother and the oldest child reside, to Otsego County, where he and the four youngest children reside (see Family Ct. Act §§ 171, 174).
“[T]he essential consideration in any child custody controversy is the best interests of the child. The hearing court may order a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Ganzenmuller v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d 756, 835 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2007][citations omitted] ). Here, the convenience of the parties and the potential witnesses who can most knowledgeably speak to the children's best interests will best be served by transferring the proceeding to Otsego County. Accordingly, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the father's motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 174 to transfer venue (see Matter of Henry v. Skratt, 11 A.D.3d 691, 784 N.Y.S.2d 126; Matter of Baccash v. Baccash, 231 A.D.2d 714, 647 N.Y.S.2d 986; cf. Matter of Feeney v. Graef, 233 A.D.2d 941, 649 N.Y.S.2d 577).
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.
Decided: June 26, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)