Reid v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Reid

57 A.D.3d 960, 870 N.Y.2d 455

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 960 (Reid v. Reid) 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

Reid v. Reid, 57 A.D.3d 960, 870 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment by testifying at trial that for at least one year prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant had unjustifiably refused to engage in sexual relations with him, despite his repeated requests (see Czaban v Czaban, 44 AD3d 894 [2007]).

The defendant’s testimony that the parties had reached an agreement that they would continue in a sexless marriage raised an issue of credibility, and we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination with respect thereto (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]; Campbell v Campbell, 50 AD3d 614 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Miller, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment by testifying at trial that for at least one year prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant had unjustifiably refused to engage in sexual relations with him, despite his repeated requests (see Czaban v Czaban, 44 AD3d 894 [2007]).

The defendant’s testimony that the parties had reached an agreement that they would continue in a sexless marriage raised an issue of credibility, and we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination with respect thereto (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]; Campbell v Campbell, 50 AD3d 614 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Miller, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 960, 870 N.Y.2d 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-reid-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack