Initial-Custody Relocation Treated as a Best-Interests Factor; Long-Distance Access Must Be Practicable, Specific, and Cost-Allocated by Economic Realities

Case: Matter of Carrington v. Pepitone, 2026 NY Slip Op 04193 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t July 1, 2026)
Lower Court: Family Court, Suffolk County (Andrea A. Amoa, Ct. Atty. Ref.), Order dated July 5, 2024
Proceedings: Related custody proceedings under Family Court Act article 6

1. Introduction

Matter of Carrington v Pepitone addresses two recurring issues in New York custody litigation: (1) how relocation is evaluated when it arises within an initial custody determination rather than as a post-judgment relocation application, and (2) what constitutes reasonable, workable parental access when parents live in different states.

The parties—unmarried parents of a child born in 2022—were living in different states: the mother in Suffolk County, New York, and the father in Massachusetts. The mother had been the primary caretaker, while the father exercised parenting time pursuant to temporary orders. The father petitioned for sole legal and residential custody (December 2022). The mother cross-petitioned for the same (January 2023).

After a hearing, the Family Court awarded the father sole legal and residential custody, permitted relocation of the child to Massachusetts, and granted the mother parental access on alternating weekends plus a midweek Wednesday dinner visit. The mother appealed, challenging both the custody/relocation outcome and the access schedule.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Appellate Division, Second Department:

• Affirmed the award of sole legal and residential custody to the father and the permission to relocate the child to Massachusetts, holding that the determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record and was supported by credibility findings entitled to deference.
• Modified the order by deleting the specific access provision (alternating weekends and every Wednesday dinner), finding it insufficient given the interstate distance and the record evidence—including the father’s testimony supporting more frequent weekend access.
• Remitted the matter for a new determination requiring: (1) a more liberal weekend schedule for the mother, (2) a specific schedule for the parties’ birthdays, and (3) an equitable allocation of transportation responsibility and costs guided by the case’s economic realities.
• Directed that the existing access schedule would remain in effect pending the Family Court’s new determination.
• Rejected the father’s argument that the mother’s appeal was frivolous (citing 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Decision)

1) Best-interests framework and factors

• Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 and Matter of Bell v Pierre, 239 AD3d 973: These anchor the court’s core premise—custody turns on the totality of the circumstances and the best interests of the child, not parental entitlement. The Second Department uses this as the organizing framework for reviewing both the custody award and relocation permission.
• Matter of Watson v Miller, 238 AD3d 883 and Matter of Guzman v Nollah, 224 AD3d 902: These decisions supply a commonly used list of best-interests considerations (stability, home environment, past performance, and relative fitness, including ability to foster the other parent’s relationship). The court’s affirmance of the father’s custody award rests heavily on these considerations—especially stability and fostering a positive relationship with the other parent.

2) Relocation in initial custody determinations

• Matter of Miller v Perez, 232 AD3d 898, Matter of Williams v Bryson, 167 AD3d 1021, and Matter of Miller v Hinckley, 176 AD3d 944: These cases articulate the key doctrinal point applied here: when relocation is raised within an initial custody determination, the court need not strictly apply the relocation-specific factor test; instead, relocation is one factor among many in the best-interests analysis. In Carrington, this principle supports the Family Court’s ability to select the father as custodian and permit the Massachusetts move without treating relocation as a separate, heightened burden.

3) Appellate deference, credibility, and record support

• Matter of Trentacoste v Alward, 225 AD3d 885 and Matter of Lawrence v Mattry, 179 AD3d 687: These underscore why the appellate court defers to the trial court’s ability to assess testimony, character, and sincerity. The Second Department leans on this deference to uphold the custody award despite contested facts.
• Matter of Pryce v Truss, 240 AD3d 911 and Morelli v Morelli, 235 AD3d 636: These supply the review standard: custody determinations are upheld if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. That standard drives the split result—affirmance on custody, reversal/remittal on access terms.
• Matter of Felty v Felty, 108 AD3d 705: Cited for giving credibility findings “great weight.” This helps explain why the father’s proof (including on co-parenting and stability) prevailed on custody.

4) Fostering the other parent’s relationship and interference with access

• Matter of Herry v Perry, 239 AD3d 742 and Matter of Nieves v Nieves, 176 AD3d 824: These frame fostering meaningful contact as a core custodial responsibility and a custody-relevant factor. The court explicitly credited evidence that the father was more likely to foster the mother-child relationship.
• Matter of Sookchan v Sookchan, 234 AD3d 779 and Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 111 AD3d 728: These address the gravity of willful interference with parental access, describing it as potentially per se evidence of unfitness. While the decision does not say the mother’s conduct alone mandated a custody transfer, it uses these authorities to justify the Family Court’s concern about the mother’s communication and cooperation (e.g., health information sharing) as part of the overall fitness/co-parenting assessment.
• Matter of Jarvis v Lashley, 169 AD3d 1043: Reinforces the use of fostering/co-parenting behavior and stability as reasons to award custody to the parent more likely to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
• Matter of Haase v Jones, 230 AD3d 774: Serves as additional support for deferring to a custody determination when the totality-of-circumstances analysis is record-supported.

5) Parental access as a right of both child and parent; reasonableness and specificity

• Matter of St. Sume v Herrera, 247 AD3d 1046 and Matter of Cornielle v Rosado, 231 AD3d 824: These supply two key principles applied to reverse the access schedule: (1) parental access is a joint right of the child and noncustodial parent, and (2) courts must craft reasonable access absent extraordinary circumstances. They also support the requirement that schedules be precise (here, birthdays). The Second Department relied on Cornielle in particular to find the alternating-weekend-plus-midweek-dinner plan inadequate given interstate distance.
• Matter of Kim v Becker, 223 AD3d 813: Reinforces the “absent extraordinary circumstances” entitlement to reasonable parental access; it supports the conclusion that the record did not justify the comparatively limited schedule imposed.

6) Transportation costs and “economic realities”

• Matter of Wright v Burke, 226 AD3d 694 and Ingarra v Ingarra, 271 AD2d 573: These authorities guide the remittal directive that transportation costs and responsibilities be allocated equitably based on the “economic realities of the case.” In long-distance parenting plans, travel logistics can effectively expand or constrict access; the cited cases emphasize that cost allocation is integral to ensuring access is meaningful rather than merely theoretical.

7) Frivolous appeal standard

• 22 NYCRR 130-1.1: The father’s request to label the appeal frivolous was rejected under this sanctions framework, signaling that disputes over custody/access structure—especially where the appellate court finds error as to access—will rarely qualify as frivolous.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Custody and relocation (affirmed)

The court applied the best-interests test under the totality of circumstances, giving substantial deference to the Family Court’s credibility findings and observing the limited scope of appellate review (sound and substantial basis).

Three record-based findings were particularly important:

• Co-parenting/fostering: the father was “more likely to foster a positive relationship with the noncustodial parent.” Under the cited case law, that factor can be decisive because it predicts the child’s ability to maintain healthy bonds with both parents.
• Communication and health information: the mother “at times failed to adequately inform the father of the child’s health,” supporting concerns about collaborative parenting and transparency.
• Stability: the father would provide a “stable home environment.” Stability is repeatedly emphasized in Second Department custody cases as a central best-interests consideration.

On relocation, the court reiterated that because this was an initial custody dispute, the relocation request did not trigger strict application of relocation-specific factors; instead, relocation was evaluated as part of best interests. That doctrinal move reduces formalism and keeps the court’s focus on the overall custody selection rather than imposing an additional analytical barrier.

2) Parental access (modified and remitted)

Although the father prevailed on custody, the Second Department treated access as an independent best-interests component requiring a plan that is workable in real life.

The existing schedule was found deficient for three reasons:

• Distance impracticability: a Wednesday dinner visit is poorly suited to an interstate arrangement, and the overall time awarded was not “reasonable” given the travel burden.
• Record evidence supporting greater access: the father testified the mother was fit and that he wanted the mother to have parental access on three weekends per month. The appellate court used that concession to underscore that a more liberal schedule was feasible and consistent with best interests.
• Lack of specificity: the order failed to set a “precise parental access schedule” for birthdays, which the court viewed as a correctable legal deficiency because ambiguous or incomplete schedules invite future conflict and enforcement issues.

The remittal is notable: the Second Department did not itself impose a new calendar; it directed the Family Court to craft one “with all convenient speed,” while keeping the existing schedule in place in the interim—balancing stability and prompt correction.

3) Travel cost allocation

The remittal instructions explicitly require an “equitable allocation” of transportation responsibilities and costs, guided by “economic realities.” This reflects an increasingly practical understanding: in long-distance cases, travel costs can function as a gatekeeper to parenting time. Ensuring the schedule is meaningful requires aligning it with what the parties can actually afford and execute.

C. Impact

• Confirms a streamlined approach to initial-custody relocation: The decision reinforces that in initial custody determinations, relocation is treated as one best-interests factor rather than a separate, rigid relocation test. Practitioners should therefore develop evidence holistically—stability, caregiving history, cooperation, and the feasibility of maintaining the other parent’s relationship—rather than relying solely on relocation-factor checklists.
• Raises expectations for realistic long-distance schedules: Trial courts are cautioned against imposing midweek visits that are incompatible with geography and against restricting weekend access without record-based justification. A schedule must be “reasonable” in practice, not merely on paper.
• Emphasizes precision to reduce post-order conflict: The requirement of a specific birthday schedule signals that courts should anticipate predictable flashpoints and address them in the written order to reduce future petitions and enforcement litigation.
• Integrates cost allocation into meaningful access: By tying travel-cost allocation to economic realities, the court treats transportation as a substantive component of access—likely encouraging more detailed proof of finances and travel logistics in interstate parenting cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Best interests of the child”: The overarching standard in custody cases. Courts weigh many factors (stability, parenting ability, cooperation, living arrangements) to decide what arrangement most benefits the child.
• “Initial custody determination” vs. “modification”: An initial determination sets custody for the first time. A modification changes an existing final custody order. This matters because relocation analysis can be treated differently depending on posture.
• Relocation as “one factor among many”: In an initial custody case, the court does not treat relocation as a separate hurdle; it asks whether the overall custody plan—including the move—serves best interests.
• “Sound and substantial basis in the record”: The appellate court will not re-try the case. If the trial court’s decision is supported by credible evidence in the hearing record, the appellate court typically affirms.
• Parental access as a “joint right”: Parenting time is considered a right belonging to both the child and the noncustodial parent, reflecting the child’s interest in maintaining a relationship with both parents.
• “Remittal”: The appellate court sends the case back to the trial court to fix specific issues (here, the parenting-time schedule details and travel-cost allocation).
• “Economic realities” in travel costs: The court looks at what the parties can realistically pay and manage so that travel does not effectively cancel parenting time.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Carrington v Pepitone delivers a two-part lesson for custody litigation involving interstate parenting: (1) when relocation is embedded in an initial custody contest, it is evaluated within the broad best-interests inquiry rather than through a rigid relocation test; and (2) when parents live far apart, the court must craft a practical, sufficiently generous, and specific parenting-time schedule—complete with birthday provisions—and allocate transportation costs in a manner consistent with the parties’ economic realities.

The decision is significant because it simultaneously protects trial-court discretion on custody/relocation (through deference and record-support standards) while insisting on appellate correction when an access schedule is not realistically workable for a long-distance family.