Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Linda Strauss, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Babak Saadatmand

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 14, 2012

LINDA STRAUSS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BABAK SAADATMAND, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Strauss v Saadatmand

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 February 14, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia Martin, J.), entered September 2, 2011, which, to the extent appealed, granted plaintiff's application to enroll the child in a pre-kindergarten in New Jersey, and denied defendant's application to modify the parties' parental access schedule, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court's decision directing that the child be enrolled in a pre-kindergarten in New Jersey was a proper exercise of discretion and the record evidence supports the conclusion that such arrangement is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The child is primarily residing with the plaintiff in New Jersey and had attended a pre-school in New Jersey the previous year. In addition, plaintiff's mother and sisters are available to pick up and drop off the child at the school in New Jersey. The child's stability is also served by allowing the child to attend a school close to home.

The IAS court properly exercised its discretion in declining to disturb the parental access schedule, which had been in effect for nearly two years at the time of the ruling. There was no showing of a change of circumstances such that modification was necessary to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Sparacio v Fitzgerald, 73 AD3d 790 [2010]). We also note that at the time of the ruling the parties were progressing towards a conclusion of the custody trial and a final order on custody was anticipated.

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments, including their requests for sanctions, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2012

CLERK

20120214

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.