Thomas v. Thomas, 79 A.D.3d 1829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. Thomas, 79 A.D.3d 1829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Hart v. Lonneville (nyappdiv, 2025-10-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Hart v. Lonneville (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The testimony further reflected that the father had a household income nearly five times that of the mother, and he recently purchased a new home where the child could have his own room ( see generally Matter of Braga v Bell , 151 AD3d 1924, 1925-1926 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas , 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holtz v. Weaver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here, the Referee found that the child and the father have a strong relationship and that the father is very active in the child’s life, and the Referee expressed “grave doubts about the parties’ ability to sustain the quality of the father-daughter relationship if [the child] relocates to Florida.” Although the Attorney for the Child indicated to the Referee that the child wished to move to Florida, the Referee properly concluded that the child’s wishes are not determinative (see Matter of Marino v Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695-1696 [2011]; Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830…
discussed Cited "see" Lauzonis v. Lauzonis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" LAUZONIS, JOSEPH v. LAUZONIS, COLLEEN
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, Aeconomic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move@ (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 ; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 ).
discussed Cited "see" Lauzonis v. Lauzonis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
While no single factor is determinative in a relocation case, “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739 ; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829, 1830 [2010]; Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" BUTLER, PAUL A. v. HESS, MARGARET E.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
While no single factor is determinative, the Court of Appeals in Tropea recognized that “economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move” (id. at 739; see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 79 AD3d 1829 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jason Thomas
v.
Jamiee Thomas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1829
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*1830] Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered May 3, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted the petition for permission to relocate permanently with the parties’ children to the state of Maryland.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking modification of the parties’ existing order of joint custody. Respondent mother contends that Family Court erred in granting the petition, in which the father sought permission for the parties’ minor children to relocate with him from Arcade, New York to the state of Maryland. We affirm. Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court properly determined that the father met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Cynthia L.C. v James L.S., 30 AD3d 1085 [2006]; see generally Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]). The father demonstrated an economic necessity for the proposed move and, “[although Tropea emphasizes that ‘no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome’ . . . , it indicates that ‘economic necessity . . . may present a particularly persuasive ground for permitting the proposed move’ ” (Matter of Stone v Wyant, 8 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2004]). Furthermore, we note that, although the Attorney for the Children indicates in her brief on appeal that the children have “changed their minds” since the time of trial and no longer wish to relocate to Maryland with their father, the children’s wishes are not determinative (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]; Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448, 1450 [2007]).

We have examined the remaining contentions of the Attorney for the Children and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Martoche, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.