A divorced Mother wanted to move 13 miles with her children which was within the 15 mile radius of the divorce settlement agreement. For those of you from Long Island the divorce agreement allowed a 15 mile radius from the former marital residence in Garden City. The Mother wanted to move to Massapequa and the Father resided in Great Neck. It appears from my research that both parents are attorneys. The Father filed to block the relocation and alternatively that the children should reside with him and attend his district's school. The ages of the children were not mentioned in the decision.
The lower court did not grant a hearing to examine the issues raised because the proposed move of the Mother was within the agreed 15 mile radius clause of the Divorce Settlement Agreement signed in January, 2022. The Agreement also provided for joint legal custody with primary residential custody with the Mother for educational purposes.
The Father's appeal of the June, 2022 lower court order was decided in November, 2025 so it would appear that the children have been attending school in the Mother's district during the litigation.
The Appellate Division stated the well known usual standard for modification of a court approved stipulation is to show "a sufficient change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child(men)".
However, the Appeals Court went on to state that the 15 mile radius restriction was not "dispositive" but was instead a "relevant factor" stating that a move within the radius is not automatically permitted. So in this case the whole issue of best interests is opened up as presently exists rather than the Mother who likely moved from Garden City the site of the former martial residence likely sold as part of the divorce proceedings being automatically permitted to relocate the children.
This ruling makes it much more difficult for attorneys to counsel and provide protection to a custodial parent who does not move far away. In the past most attorneys did not even try to challenge a nearby relocation unless there were other custodial issues that had come up subsequent to the agreement being signed.
The Appeals Court reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the trial court so that a hearing could take place to examine all relevant "best interests" issues related to the children. It would seem that since the children would be relocated whether with their Mother or their Father, that unless there were other issues she should retain the residence of the children.