Doyle v. Doyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doyle v. Doyle

253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8890

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

DecidedAugust 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 478 (Doyle v. Doyle) 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

Doyle v. Doyle, 253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Murphy, J.), dated June 2, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action based on cruel and inhuman treatment and denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[479]*479The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment in the complaint and proposed amended complaint were insufficient to sustain a cause of action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1). Assuming the truth of these allegations, they do not establish a pattern of conduct that has endangered and continues to endanger the plaintiff’s physical and mental well-being such that it would render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper (see, Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Murphy, J.), dated June 2, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action based on cruel and inhuman treatment and denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[479]*479The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment in the complaint and proposed amended complaint were insufficient to sustain a cause of action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1). Assuming the truth of these allegations, they do not establish a pattern of conduct that has endangered and continues to endanger the plaintiff’s physical and mental well-being such that it would render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper (see, Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 478, 676 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-doyle-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack