Matter of Lord v. Carter
Docket 2024-01449
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 02655
- Docket
- 2024-01449
Appeal from a Family Court order, after a hearing, resolving competing petitions about the child's school district enrollment.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order resolving where a child should attend school. The parents, who share joint legal custody and alternate weekly parenting time, could not agree on school district enrollment. After a hearing, Family Court granted the father's petition to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District and denied the mother's petition to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interests determination had a sound and substantial basis, citing the child's benefit from a diverse environment and likely residential stability with the father.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Family Court correctly determined which school district enrollment served the child's best interests
- Whether the Family Court's best-interests finding had a sound and substantial basis in the record
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the governing best-interests standard for custody- and school-placement-related disputes, reviewing the totality of the circumstances. The record showed the child would benefit from the diverse, multicultural environment in the South Huntington district and that the father was likely to continue residing there, promoting educational stability. Those factual findings provided a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's decision.
Authorities Cited
- Verfenstein v Verfenstein171 AD3d 841
- Eschbach v Eschbach56 NY2d 167
- Matter of McCall v McCandlish207 AD3d 725
Parties
- Appellant
- Coleen Lord
- Respondent
- Nicholas Carter
- Attorney
- Arza R. Feldman
- Attorney
- Salvatore C. Adamo
- Attorney
- Steven N. Feinman
- Judge
- Betsy Barros, J.P.
- Judge
- Angela G. Iannacci
- Judge
- Donna-Marie E. Golia
- Judge
- Lisa S. Ottley
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-29
- Family Court order date
- 2024-01-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Enroll the child in South Huntington
The parties should take the necessary administrative steps to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District consistent with the court's order.
- 2
Consider stability and residence plans
Either parent who plans to change residency should consult counsel to understand whether relocation would require court approval, given the impact on the child's schooling.
- 3
Consult counsel about appeal
If the mother wishes to challenge the Appellate Division's ruling further, she should promptly consult an attorney about the viability and deadlines for a Court of Appeals application.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court upheld the Family Court's decision to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District rather than Hauppauge.
- Why did the court choose South Huntington?
- The record showed the child would benefit from South Huntington's diverse, multicultural environment and that the father was likely to remain living in that district, offering stability for the child's schooling.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The primary parties affected are the child and the parents, Coleen Lord and Nicholas Carter, because the decision determines the child's school district and educational stability.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, the Appellate Division's decision could potentially be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, but any appeal would have to follow that court's rules and standards for review.
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 Lord v Carter - 2026 NY Slip Op 02655 Matter of Lord v Carter 2026 NY Slip Op 02655 April 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of Coleen Lord, appellant, v Nicholas Carter, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nicholas Carter, respondent, Coleen Lord, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 29, 2026 2024-01449, (Docket Nos. V-8178-20, V-8178-20/20A, V-8192-20) Betsy Barros, J.P. Angela G. Iannacci Donna-Marie E. Golia Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Arza R. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant. Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for respondent. Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, NY, attorney for the child. DECISION & ORDER In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Catherine E. Miller, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 10, 2024. The order, after a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which sought to enroll the parties' child in the South Huntington Union Free School District, and denied that branch of the mother's petition which sought to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The parties, who have one child together, each petitioned for custody of the child. The parties subsequently entered into a so-ordered stipulation which, inter alia, provided for joint legal custody and alternating weekly parental access with each parent. However, the parties, who reside in different school districts, were unable to come to an agreement as to where the child should attend school. The Family Court conducted a hearing on the issue of school district enrollment for the child. After the hearing, in an order dated January 10, 2024, the Family Court granted that branch of the father's petition which sought to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District and denied that branch of the mother's petition which sought to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. The mother appeals. "The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child" ( Verfenstein v Verfenstein , 171 AD3d 841, 842; see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171). The Family Court's determination in that regard will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of McCall v McCandlish , 207 AD3d 725, 726). Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to be enrolled in the South Huntington Union Free School District, as opposed to the Hauppauge Union Free School District, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Among other things, the evidence demonstrated that the child's well-being would be fostered by the diverse, multicultural environment he would enjoy in the South Huntington Union Free School District and that the father was likely to continue to reside in that school district, providing the child with stability and continuity in his education ( see Matter of McCall v McCandlish , 207 AD3d at 727; see also Verfenstein v Verfenstein , 171 AD3d at 842). Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from. BARROS, J.P., IANNACCI, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph