Krishnan v. Krishnan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krishnan v. Krishnan

166 A.D.2d 357, 561 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12773

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 357 (Krishnan v. Krishnan) 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

Krishnan v. Krishnan, 166 A.D.2d 357, 561 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered May 22, 1989, granting plaintiff a divorce upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The acts of physical violence testified to by plaintiff, which included slapping, choking, and beating her with a shoe, were not trivial, but were sufficient to constitute a pattern of grievous misconduct which presented an actual threat to plaintiffs health and safety. (See, Lind v Lind, 89 AD2d 518, affd 58 NY2d 965.) Defendant’s claim of provocation, raised for the first time on appeal, is unsupported by the testimony adduced at trial. Nor did plaintiffs failure to introduce into evidence police reports or to call witnesses to corroborate her testimony require dismissal of the complaint. The witnesses to the beatings in this case, all members of defendant’s immediate family, were not within plaintiffs control and could, moreover, be deemed hostile to plaintiffs cause. Accordingly, no negative inference can arise as a result of plaintiffs failure to call these witnesses (cf., Averett v Averett, 189 App Div 250, affd 232 NY 519; but see, Borg v Borg, 107 AD2d 777, lv denied 65 NY2d 606).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered May 22, 1989, granting plaintiff a divorce upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The acts of physical violence testified to by plaintiff, which included slapping, choking, and beating her with a shoe, were not trivial, but were sufficient to constitute a pattern of grievous misconduct which presented an actual threat to plaintiffs health and safety. (See, Lind v Lind, 89 AD2d 518, affd 58 NY2d 965.) Defendant’s claim of provocation, raised for the first time on appeal, is unsupported by the testimony adduced at trial. Nor did plaintiffs failure to introduce into evidence police reports or to call witnesses to corroborate her testimony require dismissal of the complaint. The witnesses to the beatings in this case, all members of defendant’s immediate family, were not within plaintiffs control and could, moreover, be deemed hostile to plaintiffs cause. Accordingly, no negative inference can arise as a result of plaintiffs failure to call these witnesses (cf., Averett v Averett, 189 App Div 250, affd 232 NY 519; but see, Borg v Borg, 107 AD2d 777, lv denied 65 NY2d 606).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 357, 561 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krishnan-v-krishnan-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack