In Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (N.Y. 1996), New York, long considered one of the most restrictive juris-dictions with respect to relocation, replaced a test requiring the parent seeking relocation to prove "excep-tional circumstances" to justify the move with one focusing on the best interests of the child: "We hold that each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child." Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 149-50; see Terry, supra, at 987. Recognizing that its earlier test erected artificial barriers to viewing all relevant factors for relocation, the court then identified factors for the trial court to consider, including the parents' good faith in requesting or opposing the move, the possibility of a visitation schedule allowing the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child, the degree of economic, emotional, and education enhancement for the custodial parent and the child, and the effect on extended family relation-ships. Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 149-51. The court opined that to summarily reject motives for relocation "overlooks the value for children that strengthening and stabilizing the new, postdivorce family unit can have in a particular case." Id. at 151. The Court of Appeals defined the manner in which relocation cases are to be decided. Rejecting the various formulas and presumptions which had been suggested by lower appellate courts in the past, the Tropea Court held that "each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interest of the child." The respective rights of the custodial and non-custodial parents, while still recognized as significant factors, were made subservient to the rights and needs of the child. In summarizing its holding the court noted that "in all cases, the courts should be free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination. In the end, it is for the court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child's best interests." The Court of Appeals provides a starting framework for analysis. Each relocation request is to be "consid-ered on its own merits with due consideration of all of the relevant facts and circumstances and with pre-dominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child." Tropea v. Tropea, supra at 739. The parent seeking relocation must show by "a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child's best interest " (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra at 741), taking into account, inter alia, the "quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents." Id. at 740. The Court of Appeals has found that "no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome." Tropea, supra at 738. Instead, the Court of Appeals enumerated certain relevant factors to be considered, including, but not limited to "each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life 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." Tropea supra at 738, 740-741. Overall, "while the respective rights of the custodial and noncustodial parents are unquestionably significant factors that must be considered case citation omitted, it is the rights and needs of the child that must be accorded the greatest weight, since she is an innocent victim of her parents' divorce...". Id. at 739.