Cordoves v. Cordoves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordoves v. Cordoves

11 A.D.3d 504, 782 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11998

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 12, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which, after a jury trial, denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and direct the entry of judgment in his favor as a matter of law.

[505]*505Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, through her own testimony and that of her psychologist, that the defendant’s behavior so adversely affected her physical and mental well-being that it became improper for her to cohabit with him (see Pollack v Pollack, 290 AD2d 547, 547-548 [2002]; Fuegel v Fuegel, 271 AD2d 404 [2000]; French v French, 262 AD2d 280 [1999]; Meltzer v Meltzer, 255 AD2d 497, 498 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and direct the entry of judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which, after a jury trial, denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a), inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and direct the entry of judgment in his favor as a matter of law.

[505]*505Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, through her own testimony and that of her psychologist, that the defendant’s behavior so adversely affected her physical and mental well-being that it became improper for her to cohabit with him (see Pollack v Pollack, 290 AD2d 547, 547-548 [2002]; Fuegel v Fuegel, 271 AD2d 404 [2000]; French v French, 262 AD2d 280 [1999]; Meltzer v Meltzer, 255 AD2d 497, 498 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and direct the entry of judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cordoves v. Cordoves, 11 A.D.3d 504, 782 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 504 (Cordoves v. Cordoves) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related