Case Name: In the Matter of José Antonio Lazo, Appellant, v. Olga Cherrez, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of Olga Cherrez, Respondent, v. José Antonio Lazo, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 1002
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of José Antonio Lazo, Appellant, v Olga Cherrez, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Olga Cherrez, Respondent, v José Antonio Lazo, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 1002–1003

Head Matter:
In the Matter of José Antonio Lazo, Appellant, v Olga Cherrez, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Olga Cherrez, Respondent, v José Antonio Lazo, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
[995 NYS2d 119]

Opinion:
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 2, 2012, which dismissed his petition for a hearing on the mother's proposed relocation to New Jersey with prejudice.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without cost or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination, without a hearing, as to whether it was in the subject children's best interests to relocate to New Jersey with their mother (see Matter of Katz v Shomron, 116 AD3d 777 [2014]; Matter of Law v Gray, 116 AD3d 699 [2014]; Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 [2013]; Matter of Stefas v Sierra, 104 AD3d 952 [2013]). The Family Court conducted more than 16 hearings involving custody and visitation issues between the same parties in which the best interests of the children were paramount, and had the assistance of the attorney for the children, who participated in all the proceedings and supported the determination allowing the mother to relocate. The Family Court also was familiar with the comprehensive reports of the court-appointed forensic evaluator, who separately interviewed the parties and the children, and opined that it was in their best interests for the mother to have custody.
Accordingly, the Family Court's determination not to extend this already protracted litigation by conducting an evidentiary hearing before authorizing the mother to relocate to New Jersey was a provident exercise of discretion, and supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Ortiz v Ortiz, 118 AD3d 800 [2014]; Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz, 108 AD3d 712, 713-714 [2013]; cf. Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879, 880, 881 [2009]).
Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.