“When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child” (Matter of Giraldo v Gomez, 49 AD3d 645, 645 ; see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 ; Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz, 108 AD3d 712, 713 ; Matter of Hamed v Hamed, 88 AD3d 791, 791 ; Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879, 881 ).
“Relocation may be allowed if the custodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is in the child’s best interests” (Matter of Steadman v Roumer, 81 AD3d 653, 654 ; see Matter of Hamed v Hamed, 88 AD3d at 791).
“Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the [child] and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the [child’s] future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the [child] may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the [child] through suitable visitation arrangements” (Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d at 881; see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741; Matter of Retamozzo v Moyer, 91 AD3d 957, 957-958 ; Matter of Hamed v Hamed, 88 AD3d at 791-792).
In relocation determinations, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the hearing court (see Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz, 108 AD3d at 713; Matter of Jennings v Yillah-Chow, 84 AD3d 1376, 1377 ). Thus, a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 ).