Lai Yin Kwan v. Zhi Cheng Shen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lai Yin Kwan v. Zhi Cheng Shen

265 A.D.2d 530, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 530 (Lai Yin Kwan v. Zhi Cheng Shen) 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

Lai Yin Kwan v. Zhi Cheng Shen, 265 A.D.2d 530, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary [531]*531relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated July 21, 1998, as distributed the marital assets.

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

The trial court properly distributed the marital assets pursuant to a written agreement between the parties which was neither unconscionable nor overreaching (see generally, Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42; Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71; Frank v Frank, 260 AD2d 344; Greenfield v Greenfield, 147 AD2d 440, 442; Yuda v Yuda, 143 AD2d 657). The court’s determination rested largely on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses presented during the trial, and the determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826; Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Smith, 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 [531]*531relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated July 21, 1998, as distributed the marital assets.

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

The trial court properly distributed the marital assets pursuant to a written agreement between the parties which was neither unconscionable nor overreaching (see generally, Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42; Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71; Frank v Frank, 260 AD2d 344; Greenfield v Greenfield, 147 AD2d 440, 442; Yuda v Yuda, 143 AD2d 657). The court’s determination rested largely on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses presented during the trial, and the determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Matter of Liccione v John H., 65 NY2d 826; Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 530, 696 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lai-yin-kwan-v-zhi-cheng-shen-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack