Haczela v. Kral

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haczela v. Kral

243 A.D.2d 444, 665 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 444 (Haczela v. Kral) 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

Haczela v. Kral, 243 A.D.2d 444, 665 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 26, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff husband a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and distributed the marital property pursuant to the terms of an antenuptial agreement dated May 25, 1988, and a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on July 26, 1995.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s finding that the husband was entitled to a divorce from the wife on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment is supported by the record and we see no reason to disturb its determination (see, Kahn v Kahn, 221 AD2d 320; Soto v Soto, 216 AD2d 455).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 wife appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 26, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff husband a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and distributed the marital property pursuant to the terms of an antenuptial agreement dated May 25, 1988, and a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on July 26, 1995.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s finding that the husband was entitled to a divorce from the wife on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment is supported by the record and we see no reason to disturb its determination (see, Kahn v Kahn, 221 AD2d 320; Soto v Soto, 216 AD2d 455).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 444, 665 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haczela-v-kral-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack