Levitin v. Levitin
| Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 13598/13,2017-12121 |
| Citation | 89 N.Y.S.3d 256,167 A.D.3d 589 |
| Parties | Michelle LEVITIN, Respondent, v. Joshua LEVITIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph Obermeister, Cedarhurst, NY, for appellant.
Barry J. Fisher, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Cheryl L. Jakinovich of counsel), for respondent.
Lawrence M. Schaffer, Plainview, NY, attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lenora Gerald, J.), entered September 20, 2017. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated November 29, 2016, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff sole custody of the parties' children and permission to relocate to California, awarded the defendant parental access and telephone contact with the children, and awarded the plaintiff maintenance, child support, and counsel fees.
ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by adding thereto a provision stating that with respect to the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah, Succoth, Hanukkah, and Purim, commencing upon the close of the school day for all three children on the day prior to the holiday and ending on the day prior to the children's return to school, the defendant shall have the children on all even numbered years and the plaintiff shall have the children on all odd numbered years, and (2) by adding thereto a provision directing that the defendant's telephone contact with the children on Friday evenings and the beginning of Jewish holidays shall be one hour prior to sunset in New York City; as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
The parties were married on June 5, 2007, and had three children together. The plaintiff, who did not work outside of the home, was the children's primary caretaker and maintained the marital home, while the defendant was the sole source of financial support for this observant Orthodox Jewish family. The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief seeking, inter alia, sole custody of the parties' children and permission to relocate with them to California, where she originally came from and where her own family still resides. The plaintiff alleged that she was the victim of domestic violence, including rape by the defendant. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a written decision dated November 29, 2016, in which it, inter alia, credited the plaintiff's allegations of domestic violence and rape, awarded her sole custody of the parties' children, and permitted her to relocate with them to California. A judgment of divorce was thereafter entered September 20, 2017, upon the decision. The defendant appeals.
In making a custody determination, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the children (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765 ). In cases in which domestic violence is alleged, and the allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the children (see Bressler v. Bressler, 122 A.D.3d 659, 660, 996 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; Matter of Andrews v. Mouzon, 80 A.D.3d 761, 761, 915 N.Y.S.2d 604 ). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly considered the allegations of domestic violence, along with all the other relevant factors, in awarding sole custody of the parties' children to the plaintiff. Further, the court's determination that the plaintiff's proposed relocation to California with the parties' children is in the best interests of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulzar v. Gulzar
...turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties (see Levitin v. Levitin , 167 A.D.3d 589, 591, 89 N.Y.S.3d 256 ; Fenech v. Fenech , 141 A.D.3d 683, 685, 35 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; Matter of Gooler v. Gooler , 107 A.D.3d 712, 712, 966 N.Y.S.2......
-
Kaziu v. Human Care Servs. for Families & Children, Inc.
...may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility" ( Ruggiero v. DePalo, 153 A.D.3d 870, 872, 61 N.Y.S.3d 253167 A.D.3d 589[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Singletary v. Alhalal Rest., Inc., 163 A.D.3d 738, 80 N.Y.S.3d 414 ; Gardella v. Remizov, 144 A.D.3d 977,......
-
Masri v. Masri
...turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties (see Levitin v. Levitin, 167 A.D.3d 589, 591, 89 N.Y.S.3d 256 ; Fenech v. Fenech, 141 A.D.3d 683, 685, 35 N.Y.S.3d 471 ). Here, the Family Court's determination as to the best interest......
-
Hernandez v. Viana
...in making its determination, the court properly considered the effects of domestic violence upon the child (see Levitin v. Levitin, 167 A.D.3d 589, 590, 89 N.Y.S.3d 256 ). Although relocation will have an inevitable impact on the father's parenting time, the court directed a liberal parenta......