Brienza v. Brienza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brienza v. Brienza

213 A.D.2d 364, 624 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 364 (Brienza v. Brienza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brienza v. Brienza, 213 A.D.2d 364, 624 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated April 7, 1994, which, inter alia, dismissed the action for failure of proof.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no basis in the record to find that the Supreme [365]*365Court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs action for divorce based upon constructive abandonment. When the determination of constructive abandonment is premised upon an evaluation of the credibility of the respective witnesses, the determination of the trier of fact, who heard and saw the witnesses, should be accorded great weight (see, Caso v Caso, 161 AD2d 683; Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690; Infosino v Infosino, 109 AD2d 869, 870).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated April 7, 1994, which, inter alia, dismissed the action for failure of proof.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no basis in the record to find that the Supreme [365]*365Court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs action for divorce based upon constructive abandonment. When the determination of constructive abandonment is premised upon an evaluation of the credibility of the respective witnesses, the determination of the trier of fact, who heard and saw the witnesses, should be accorded great weight (see, Caso v Caso, 161 AD2d 683; Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690; Infosino v Infosino, 109 AD2d 869, 870).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 364, 624 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brienza-v-brienza-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack