Matter of Luisa Holden v Clive Cardozo

Matter of Holden v Cardozo 2004 NYSlipOp 03567 Decided on May 3, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 3, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARMENT
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ. DECISION & ORDER
2003-04249
2003-04955

[*1]In the Matter of Luisa Holden, appellant,

v

Clive Cardozo, respondent. (Docket No. V-3789/99)




Luisa Holden, Weston, Mass., appellant pro se.
Clive Cardozo, Quogue, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Marjorie E. Zuckerman, Bay Shore, N.Y., Law Guardian for the
child.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from (1) stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), entered June 7, 2002, which, inter alia, denied her petition to relocate with the parties' child to the State of Massachusetts and directed her to return with the parties' child within 30 days from the date of entry of the order to Suffolk County or an adjacent location not to exceed a distance of 35 miles from the westernmost point of Suffolk County and (2) so much of an order of the same court (Blass, J.), entered May 15, 2003, as, upon a determination adjudicating her in contempt, sentenced her to incarceration for a period of 90 days and transferred custody of the parties' child to the father. By decision and order on motion of this court dated May 29, 2003, so much of the order entered May 15, 2003, as sentenced the mother to incarceration for a period of 90 days was stayed pending hearing and determination of that appeal.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs; and it is further, [*2]

ORDERED that the appellant is directed to surrender herself to the Sheriff of Suffolk County upon expiration of the stay of enforcement of the order entered May 15, 2003, pursuant to CPLR 5519(e).

After weighing all of the appropriate factors, the Family Court properly denied the mother's petition to relocate to Massachusetts with the parties' child (see Matter of Church v Cohen, 266 AD2d 285, 285-286; Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739, 740-741).

The Family Court properly held the mother in contempt of court for her wilful violation of numerous clear and unequivocal court orders and sentenced her appropriately (see Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 261 AD2d 576, 577; Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, 250 AD2d 609, 609-610).

Given the mother's systematic pattern of acting to entirely remove the father from the life of the parties' child and her violation of numerous orders of visitation, which ultimately led to a 90-day jail sentence, under the totality of the circumstances, transfer of custody to the father was in the child's best interests (see Bains v Bains, 308 AD2d 557, 558-559; Matter of Morton v Morton, 158 AD2d 458).

The mother's remaining contentions either are without merit or not properly before this court.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk