Rizvi v. Shah

• Decision Date: 25 March 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-09517 (Docket Nos. V-10225-12, V-10226-12, V-10227-12, V-10513-12, V-10514-12, V-10515-12)
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02487,6 N.Y.S.3d 139,126 A.D.3d 984
• Parties: In the Matter of Qaim A. RIZVI, appellant, v. Monica H. SHAH, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Monica H. Shah, respondent, v. Qaim A. Rizvi, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 984

6 N.Y.S.3d 139

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02487

In the Matter of Qaim A. RIZVI, appellant

v.Monica H. SHAH, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Monica H. Shah, respondent

v.Qaim A. Rizvi, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).

2013-09517 (Docket Nos. V-10225-12, V-10226-12, V-10227-12, V-10513-12, V-10514-12, V-10515-12)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 25, 2015.

William A. Sheeckutz, East Meadow, N.Y., for appellant.

Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, N.Y., attorney for the children.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.H.O.), dated August 28, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was to relocate with the subject children.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 1998 and they have three children together. The parties separated in 2009, and in 2012, the mother filed a petition seeking, inter alia, permission to relocate with the subject children to India. After a hearing, the Family Court, among other things, granted that branch of the mother's petition which was to relocate with the subject children to India. The father appeals from that portion of the order.

“In determining whether relocation is appropriate, each ‘request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Estevez v. Perez, 123 A.D.3d 707, 708, 998 N.Y.S.2d 413, quoting Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ). These factors include, but are not limited to, “each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and both parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements” (Matter of Hall v. Hall, 118 A.D.3d 879, 880–881, 987 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; see Matter of Tropea v....