Jancu v. Jancu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jancu v. Jancu

265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10883

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 266 (Jancu v. Jancu) 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

Jancu v. Jancu, 265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1998, which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply supports the finding that the parties agreed to waive their rights under Judiciary Law § 21, and to have this matter decided, based on the trial record, by a Judge who did not preside at the trial. Such an agreement is enforceable notwithstanding “the inevitable credibility issues” that attend oral testimony {Robinson u State of New York, 228 AD2d [267]*26752, 55, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1998, which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply supports the finding that the parties agreed to waive their rights under Judiciary Law § 21, and to have this matter decided, based on the trial record, by a Judge who did not preside at the trial. Such an agreement is enforceable notwithstanding “the inevitable credibility issues” that attend oral testimony {Robinson u State of New York, 228 AD2d [267]*26752, 55, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 266, 697 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jancu-v-jancu-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack