Kataeva v Kataev
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law—child custody and relocation; enforcement of divorce stipulation tax reimbursement provisions.
Denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s requests to enjoin the plaintiff’s relocation and school enrollment choices, to award the defendant primary residential custody for schooling, or alternatively to require the plaintiff to handle transportation; granted the plaintiff $4,565 under the stipulation’s tax reimbursement provisions.
The denial, without a hearing, of the defendant’s relocation/custody-related requests was modified and remitted for a hearing.
Relocation must be decided based on the children’s best interests under Matter of Tropea v Tropea, and disputed facts required a hearing; the 15‑mile stipulation was not self-executing permission to move and is only one factor, not dispositive.
Background
The parties divorced in 2020 and have two children. A January 6, 2022 so-ordered stipulation provided joint legal custody with the plaintiff having primary residential custody for schooling and barred relocation more than 15 miles from the former marital residence (Garden City) without consent or court order. In 2022, the plaintiff sought to move to Massapequa (approximately 13 miles) and enroll the children in the Massapequa School District. The defendant moved to enjoin the relocation and enrollment, sought primary residential custody for schooling with enrollment in the Great Neck School District (where he resided), or alternatively an order requiring the plaintiff to transport the children to and from his parenting time. The plaintiff cross-moved to enforce tax reimbursement provisions seeking $4,565.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the defendant’s relocation/custody/transportation requests without a hearing and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to enforce the stipulation’s tax reimbursement provisions in the amount of $4,565.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified by deleting the denial of the defendant’s relocation/custody/transportation branches and remitted for a best-interests hearing and a new determination. It affirmed the enforcement of the $4,565 tax reimbursement award.
Legal Significance
Relocation disputes in custody matters must be evaluated on a best-interests analysis and cannot be resolved solely by reference to a geographic radius clause in a stipulation. A move within the stipulated radius is not automatic; the clause is a relevant but non-dispositive factor. Where best-interests facts are disputed, a hearing is required before denying or granting relief. Financial provisions of a so-ordered stipulation remain enforceable according to their terms.
In New York custody cases, even a relocation within an agreed mileage radius requires a best-interests determination after a hearing if facts are in dispute; courts may not deny such motions without a hearing. Stipulated tax reimbursement obligations will be enforced as written.