Hong Shi v. Ya Juan Ren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hong Shi v. Ya Juan Ren

38 A.D.3d 841, 831 N.Y.S.2d 339

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 841 (Hong Shi v. Ya Juan Ren) 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

Hong Shi v. Ya Juan Ren, 38 A.D.3d 841, 831 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), entered October 3, 2005, as directed that the marital home be sold.

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

The Supreme Court vacated the parties’ original judgment of [842]*842divorce, dated September 24, 2003, on the ground that the husband procured the stipulation of settlement upon which it was based by duress and compulsion. In view of this and the acrimonious relationship between the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the sale of the marital home (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d], [f]; Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 398, 399 [2006]; Altmann v Finger, 23 AD3d 591, 592 [2005]; Martinucci v Martinucci, 288 AD2d 444, 445 [2001]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Garni and McCarthy, 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 husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), entered October 3, 2005, as directed that the marital home be sold.

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

The Supreme Court vacated the parties’ original judgment of [842]*842divorce, dated September 24, 2003, on the ground that the husband procured the stipulation of settlement upon which it was based by duress and compulsion. In view of this and the acrimonious relationship between the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the sale of the marital home (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d], [f]; Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 398, 399 [2006]; Altmann v Finger, 23 AD3d 591, 592 [2005]; Martinucci v Martinucci, 288 AD2d 444, 445 [2001]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 841, 831 N.Y.S.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hong-shi-v-ya-juan-ren-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack