Matter of Branch v. Lee
Docket 2025-03956
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02402
- Docket
- 2025-03956
Appeal from a Family Court order denying a petition to modify a custody/parenting order to permit relocation of the child
Summary
The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order denying a mother's 2023 petition to modify a 2018 custody order to permit her to relocate with her child from New Jersey to Michigan. The parents share joint legal custody and the mother has physical custody. After a hearing, the Family Court found the mother failed to show the move would improve the child's economic or educational circumstances and that it would not harm the child's relationship with the father. The appellate court held that the Family Court's best-interest determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record and upheld the denial.
Issues Decided
- Whether the mother met her burden to show that relocating the child to Michigan would be in the child's best interests
- Whether the proposed move would enhance the child's economic or educational circumstances
- Whether the proposed relocation would negatively affect the quantity and quality of the child's contact with the father
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the child's best-interest test for relocation, weighing factors such as each parent's reasons, the child's relationships with both parents, the move's effect on contact with the noncustodial parent, and potential economic and educational benefits. The Family Court found, on the record, that the mother failed to demonstrate that moving to Michigan would improve the child's economic or educational situation and failed to show the move would not harm the father's contact with the child. Because those findings were supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, the appellate court affirmed.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Scotto v Alexander231 AD3d 1157
- Matter of Tropea v Tropea87 NY2d 727
- Matter of Banks v DeLeon174 AD3d 598
Parties
- Appellant
- Breck Branch
- Respondent
- Damion Lee
- Attorney
- Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. (Randy J. Perlmutter of counsel) for appellant
- Attorney
- Elliot Green for respondent
- Attorney
- Liberty Aldrich (Eva D. Stein of counsel), attorney for the child
- Judge
- Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Key Dates
- original custody order
- 2018-05-14
- relocation petition filed
- 2023-01-01
- Family Court order denying relocation
- 2025-01-30
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult family law counsel
Talk with an attorney about whether new evidence or changed circumstances could support a renewed relocation petition or whether appellate relief is available.
- 2
Consider alternatives to relocation
Explore options to enhance the child's relationship with the father if a move becomes necessary, such as revised visitation schedules or long-distance parenting plans, and document any proposed arrangements.
- 3
Preserve record for any further proceedings
If planning another petition or appeal, compile evidence of economic, educational, or custodial changes and any proposed visitation logistics to demonstrate the child's best interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the mother's request to move the child from New Jersey to Michigan because she did not prove the move would be in the child's best interests.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The mother (appellant), the father (respondent), and the child; the child's living arrangements remain under the existing 2018 order with the mother having physical custody and the father having parental access.
- Why was the petition denied?
- The court found the mother failed to show the move would provide economic or educational benefits and that it would not adversely affect the father's relationship and contact with the child.
- Can the mother try again to relocate?
- She could pursue further relief only by filing another petition presenting new or stronger evidence showing the relocation would be in the child's best interests or by seeking leave to appeal if appropriate grounds exist.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Branch v Lee - 2026 NY Slip Op 02402 Matter of Branch v Lee 2026 NY Slip Op 02402 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of Breck Branch, appellant, v Damion Lee, respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2025-03956, (Docket Nos. V-16858-17/23C, V-16858-17/23D) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Paul Wooten Lourdes M. Ventura Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., New City, NY (Randy J. Perlmutter of counsel), for appellant. Elliot Green, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent. Liberty Aldrich, Brooklyn, NY (Eva D. Stein of counsel), attorney for the child (no brief filed). DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Nisha Menon, J.), dated January 30, 2025. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied the mother's petition to modify an order of the same court dated May 14, 2018, so as to permit her to relocate with the subject child to Michigan. ORDERED that the order dated January 30, 2025, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent. The parties, who were never married, have one child together, born in 2016. Pursuant to an order dated May 14, 2018 (hereinafter the 2018 order), upon a so-ordered parenting agreement of the same date, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of the child and the mother was awarded physical custody of the child, subject to the father's parental access with the child. At the time, the mother was residing in New Jersey and the father was residing in Brooklyn. In July 2021, the mother married her current husband, who resides in Michigan. In January 2023, the mother filed a petition to modify the 2018 order so as to permit her to relocate with the child from New Jersey to Michigan. In an order dated January 30, 2025, after a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, denied the mother's petition. The mother appeals. A parent seeking to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child's best interests ( see Matter of Scotto v Alexander , 231 AD3d 1157, 1157-1158; Quinn v Quinn , 134 AD3d 688, 689). "In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must consider a number of factors including 'each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements'" ( Matter of Banks v DeLeon , 174 AD3d 598, 599, quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea , 87 NY2d 727, 740-741; see Matter of Scotto v Alexander , 231 AD3d at 1158). "In assessing these factors, no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome, but the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern" ( Matter of Fortune v Jasmin , 232 AD3d 601, 603 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Barker v Rohack , 173 AD3d 1173, 1174 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would not be served by relocating with the mother to Michigan is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Bailey v Ayoub , 203 AD3d 1043, 1044; Matter of Wells v Dellago , 195 AD3d 625, 626). The mother failed to establish that the relocation to Michigan would enhance the child's life economically or educationally ( see Matter of Reyes v Gill , 155 AD3d 1044, 1045). The mother also failed to establish that the move would not have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of the child's contact with the father ( see Matter of Bailey v Ayoub , 203 AD3d at 1044; Matter of Barker v Rohack , 173 AD3d at 1175). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the mother's petition to modify the 2018 order so as to permit her to relocate with the child from New Jersey to Michigan. DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph