Matter of Diana M. v Nityanan T.
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 30, 2014
Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse, Gische, JJ.
13851
[*1] In re Diana M., Petitioner-Appellant,
v
Nityanan T., Respondent-Respondent.
In re Nityanan T., Petitioner-Respondent, -against-Diana M., Respondent-Appellant.
Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC, New York (Naved Amed of counsel), for appellant.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner mother's application to relocate with the parties' child to Florida, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court properly found, after consideration of the evidence adduced at trial, that the proposed relocation would not serve the child's best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of David J.B. v Monique H., 52 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2008]). While petitioner established that a slight economic advantage would be realized by the move to Florida, the advantage did not outweigh the disruption in the child's bond with respondent father so as to warrant relocation (compare Matter of Harrsch v Jesser, 74 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Kevin McK. v Elizabeth A.E., 111 AD3d 124 [1st Dept 2013]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 30, 2014
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.