Matter of Sprague v. Younes
Docket 321 CAF 24-01700
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
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02758
- Docket
- 321 CAF 24-01700
Appeal from an order of Family Court, Allegany County, dismissing a mother's petition under Family Court Act article 6 seeking permission to relocate with the child.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed Family Court's dismissal of a mother's petition to relocate to Arkansas with her child. The court found new information — the mother married a fiancé who lives in Arkansas and the father had not exercised visitation for 16 months — made the existing record insufficient to decide the child's best interests. The appellate court reinstated the mother's petition and remitted the case to Family Court for an expedited hearing and a fresh best-interests determination.
Issues Decided
- Whether Family Court's determination that relocation was not in the child's best interests had a sound and substantial basis in the record.
- Whether new facts submitted to the appellate court render the existing record insufficient for deciding the relocation petition and justify remand for further proceedings.
Court's Reasoning
The appellate court concluded that the new information — the mother's recent marriage to someone residing in Arkansas and the father's 16-month lack of visitation — could change the best-interests analysis and therefore the record before Family Court was no longer sufficient. Citing precedent that permits taking notice of new facts that affect the adequacy of the record, the court reinstated the petition and ordered an expedited hearing so Family Court can reassess whether relocation serves the child's best interests.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Allen v Courtney224 AD3d 1346 (4th Dept 2024)
- Matter of Michael B.80 NY2d 299 (1992)
- Matter of Morris v Smith244 AD3d 1741 (4th Dept 2025)
- Matter of Kennedy v Kennedy107 AD3d 1625 (4th Dept 2013)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Elizabeth A. Younes
- Respondent
- Ethan K. Sprague
- Attorney
- Gary Muldoon (Attorney for the Child)
- Attorney
- Veronica Reed (Law Office of Veronica Reed, counsel for respondent-petitioner and petitioner-appellant)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-01
- Family Court order entered
- 2024-09-17
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Prepare for expedited Family Court hearing
The mother and father should gather evidence about the child's ties, support systems, schooling, visitation history, and how relocation would affect the child's welfare to present at the new hearing.
- 2
Consider engaging counsel
Each party should consult or retain family law counsel experienced in relocation cases to develop legal arguments and evidentiary support for the best-interests assessment.
- 3
Address visitation and parenting plan
The parties should be prepared to propose or negotiate a detailed parenting and visitation plan that accounts for interstate relocation if the court permits the move.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court reversed Family Court's dismissal of the mother's relocation petition, reinstated the petition, and sent the case back for a new expedited hearing on the child's best interests.
- Why did the court reverse the lower court?
- Because new information — the mother married someone who lives in Arkansas and the father had not visited for 16 months — made the existing record inadequate to determine what is best for the child.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The mother (Elizabeth Younes), the father (Ethan Sprague), and the child are affected, since the outcome will determine whether the child may relocate to Arkansas with the mother.
- What happens next?
- Family Court must hold an expedited hearing and issue a new decision assessing whether relocation is in the child's best interests.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, after the new Family Court decision is entered, the losing party could seek further appellate review under applicable rules.
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 Sprague v Younes - 2026 NY Slip Op 02758 Matter of Sprague v Younes 2026 NY Slip Op 02758 May 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department IN THE MATTER OF ETHAN K. SPRAGUE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v ELIZABETH A. YOUNES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. IN THE MATTER OF ELIZABETH A. YOUNES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, ETHAN K. SPRAGUE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on May 1, 2026 321 CAF 24-01700 Present: Lindley, J.P., Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ. LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT. GARY MULDOON, ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Emily Vella, R.), entered September 17, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the petition of respondent-petitioner seeking permission to relocate to Arkansas with the parties' child. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, respondent-petitioner's petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Allegany County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent-petitioner mother appeals from an order insofar as it dismissed her petition seeking permission to relocate to Arkansas with the parties' child. The mother contends that Family Court's determination that relocation is not in the child's best interests lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. The Attorney for the Child has submitted new information to this Court indicating that the mother married her fiancé, who resides in Arkansas, and that petitioner-respondent father has not exercised any visitation with the child for the past 16 months. This Court may "take notice of . . . new facts and allegations to the extent they indicate that the record before us is no longer sufficient for determining" whether relocation is in the child's best interests ( Matter of Allen v Courtney , 224 AD3d 1346, 1347 [4th Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Michael B. , 80 NY2d 299, 318 [1992]; see also Matter of Morris v Smith , 244 AD3d 1741, 1744 [4th Dept 2025]). In light of the new information, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and reinstate the mother's petition, and we remit the matter to Family Court for an expedited hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of whether, considering the best interests of the child, the mother should be permitted to relocate with the child ( see Allen , 224 AD3d at 1347; Matter of Kennedy v Kennedy , 107 AD3d 1625, 1626 [4th Dept 2013]). Entered: May 1, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn