Ross v. Ross
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
“In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change of circumstances so that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Fallarino v Ayala, 41 AD3d 714, 714 [2007]; see Matter of Strand-O’Shea v O’Shea, 32 AD3d 398 [2006]; Scheuering v Scheuering, 27 AD3d 446, 447 [2006]; Matter of Heuthe o McLaren, 1 AD3d 514 [2003]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Fallarino o Ayala, 41 AD 3d at…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eschbach v. EschbachNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Entwistle v. EntwistleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Fallarino v. AyalaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Gurewich v. GurewichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Davies v. DaviesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Wakefield v. WakefieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- James R.O. v. Cond-ArnoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Castagnini v. Hyman-HuntAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Flores v. MarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Jones v. PaganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.