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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 2007·Published

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] divorce, 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] divorce, 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.

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

Pincite

38 A.D.3d 841 (Hong Shi v. Ya Juan Ren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related