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

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 504 (Cordoves v. Cordoves) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 504, 782 N.Y.S.2d 650, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordoves-v-cordoves-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack