Hird v. Hird

170 A.D.2d 1049, 566 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1932
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 1, 1991·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff a judgment of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Although the court should have stated "the facts it deems essential” (CPLR 4213 [b]), reversal is not required because [1050]*1050the record on appeal is complete and permits this court to make the proper findings (see, Katzenstein v Katzenstein, 90 AD2d 533, 534; Schwartz v Schwartz, 52 AD2d 874; Keklak v Keklak, 49 AD2d 926). The testimony established that defendant physically and verbally abused and threatened plaintiff and that defendant was involved in an extramarital relationship during the marriage (see, Pfeil v Pfeil, 100 AD2d 725; Barry v Barry, 93 AD2d 797; McPherson v McPherson, 53 AD2d 791). Corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony was not required (see, Borg v Borg, 107 AD2d 777, 778, lv denied 65 NY2d 606; D’Amato v D'Amato, 96 AD2d 849). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J.—Divorce.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Hird v. Hird, 170 A.D.2d 1049, 566 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

170 A.D.2d 1049 (Hird v. Hird) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pascarella v. Pascarella
210 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kavanakudiyil v. Kavanakudiyil
203 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)