Legal Opinion
Nielsen v. Nielsen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 8, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum: Because the distance between Watertown and Buffalo is sufficient to frustrate petitioner’s frequent and regular contact with the children, respondent was properly required to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warranted her relocation (see, Stec v Levindofske, 153 AD2d 310, 312, lv denied 75 NY2d 711; cf., Matter of Giovannone v Giovannone, 206 AD2d 869, lv denied 84 NY2d 805). The record supports Family Court’s determination that respondent failed to meet that burden. The contention that the court erred in failing to interview the children in camera is not preserved for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Corsell v. CorsellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Stec v. LevindofskeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Giovannone v. GiovannoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Newton v. NewtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rudy v. MazzettiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Picot v. BarrettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Bielli v. BielliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- In re David H.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002