Mitry v. Vezza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitry v. Vezza

255 A.D.2d 370, 679 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11807

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 370 (Mitry v. Vezza) 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

Mitry v. Vezza, 255 A.D.2d 370, 679 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated November 10, 1997, which is in favor of the plaintiff awarding him a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant’s notice of appeal from the decision dated October 14, 1997, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of the trial court as a fact finder on the issue of cruel and inhuman treatment will not be lightly disturbed on appeal” (Soto v Soto, 216 AD2d 455, 456; see also, Kalinich v Kalinich, 205 AD2d 736). Giving due deference to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it properly found that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]), as he demonstrated that the defendant’s conduct “so endanger [ed] the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as render [ed] it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant” (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]; see, Soto v Soto, supra; Gray v Gray, 245 AD2d 584; Wilbourne v Wilbourne, 173 AD2d 289). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated November 10, 1997, which is in favor of the plaintiff awarding him a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant’s notice of appeal from the decision dated October 14, 1997, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [a]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of the trial court as a fact finder on the issue of cruel and inhuman treatment will not be lightly disturbed on appeal” (Soto v Soto, 216 AD2d 455, 456; see also, Kalinich v Kalinich, 205 AD2d 736). Giving due deference to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it properly found that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment (see, Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]), as he demonstrated that the defendant’s conduct “so endanger [ed] the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as render [ed] it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant” (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]; see, Soto v Soto, supra; Gray v Gray, 245 AD2d 584; Wilbourne v Wilbourne, 173 AD2d 289). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 370, 679 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitry-v-vezza-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack