Kalinich v. Kalinich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalinich v. Kalinich

205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 736 (Kalinich v. Kalinich) 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

Kalinich v. Kalinich, 205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated December 17, 1991, as, after a nonjury trial, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment.

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

The trial court’s determination that the plaintiff proved his entitlement to a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]; Diemer v Diemer, 8 NY2d 206), was based upon its evaluation of the credibility of the parties. We see no reason to disturb that evaluation on appeal (Caso v Caso, 161 AD2d 683; Raso v Raso, 129 AD2d 692).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated December 17, 1991, as, after a nonjury trial, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment.

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

The trial court’s determination that the plaintiff proved his entitlement to a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]; Diemer v Diemer, 8 NY2d 206), was based upon its evaluation of the credibility of the parties. We see no reason to disturb that evaluation on appeal (Caso v Caso, 161 AD2d 683; Raso v Raso, 129 AD2d 692).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 736, 614 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalinich-v-kalinich-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack