Webb v. Aaron, 79 A.D.3d 1761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Webb v. Aaron, 79 A.D.3d 1761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: HIRSCHMAN, NICHOLE M. v. MCFADDEN, PATRICK R. (nyappdiv, 2016-03-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) HIRSCHMAN, NICHOLE M. v. MCFADDEN, PATRICK R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In addition, compared to the support the mother and the child receive by residing with the maternal grandmother in New York, we conclude that the mother failed to establish that she and the child would receive similar support in Florida, where the nearest family member would be over an hour away (see Matter of Anne S. v Peter S., 92 AD3d 483, 484 [2012]; Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Epps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother “failed to establish that the lives of the mother and the child would be ‘enhanced economically [or] educationally by the move’ ” (Matter of Holtz v Weaver, 94 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2012], quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]), and the credible evidence supports the court’s determination that the child’s relationship with the father and other relatives in the Buffalo area would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]), the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing tha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Epps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother “failed to establish that the lives of the mother and the child would be ‘enhanced economically [or] educationally by the move’ ” (Matter of Holtz v Weaver, 94 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2012], quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]), and the credible evidence supports the court’s determination that the child’s relationship with the father and other relatives in the Buffalo area would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]), the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing tha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LANG-LOEB, REBECCA L. v. O'NEILL, JOHN F.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court denied both petitions and further ordered that, “should the [mother] relocate to Alabama the Court finds that it would be in the child’s best interest that the [father] should be the primary custodian of the child.” With respect to the relocation petition, we conclude that the court properly considered the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) in determining that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the child’s best…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holtz v. Weaver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here, we conclude that the Referee properly considered the factors set forth in Tropea and determined that the mother did not meet her burden of establishing that the proposed relocation is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761 [2010]; Murphy, 72 AD3d at 1626-1627 ; Matter of Seyler v Hasfurter, 61 AD3d 1437 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BARLOW, UCHENNA R. v. SMITH, DONALD C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“In seeking such permission, the mother was required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation would be in the [children’s] best interests” (Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761 [2010]; see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]), and the mother failed to meet that burden.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramirez v. Velazquez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We thus conclude on the record before us that the court properly determined that the relationship between the children and the father, along with other relatives, would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BUTLER, PAUL A. v. HESS, MARGARET E.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Thus, the mother established “the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the [father] and child through suitable visitation arrangements” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 741 ; cf. Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Delores M. Webb
v.
Maurice Aaron
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1761
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M. Lo Vallo, A.J.), entered February 10, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the petition for leave to relocate with the parties’ child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied her petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation by granting permission for the parties’ daughter to relocate with her to California. We affirm. In seeking such permission, the mother was required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation would be in the daughter’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]) and, as Family Court properly determined, the mother failed to meet that burden. In considering the factors set forth in Tropea, the court properly determined that the mother failed to establish that her daughter’s life and her own life would “be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the [relocation]” (id.; see Matter of Murphy v Peace, 72 AD3d 1626, 1626-1627 [2010]; Matter of Jones v Tarnawa, 26 AD3d 870, 871 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]). The court also properly determined that the relation[*1762] ship of the daughter with respondent father and other relatives, particularly those who provided frequent and meaningful support in the Buffalo area, would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Chancer v Stowell, 5 AD3d 1082 [2004]; Matter of Guiffrida v Adams, 277 AD2d 948 [2000]; see generally Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740). Furthermore, the mother failed to establish that there was a visitation arrangement that would be conducive to the maintenance of a close relationship between the daughter and the father (cf. Matter of Parish A. v Jamie T., 49 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2008]; see generally Tropea, 87 NY2d at 738). Present — Centra, J.P., Bindley, Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.