Sandhu v. Sandhu

New York Court of Appeals

Sandhu v. Sandhu

458 N.E.2d 819, 60 N.Y.2d 866, 470 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3531

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 458 N.E.2d 819 (Sandhu v. Sandhu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sandhu v. Sandhu, 458 N.E.2d 819, 60 N.Y.2d 866, 470 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3531 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There was no error of law in the conclusion reached by both courts below that cruel and inhuman treatment has been sufficiently demonstrated to satisfy the requirement of subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law (Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406, 411). In balancing the *868 several factors to be considered on this record, the courts were not bound to deny relief to plaintiff husband because of the duration of the marriage and defendant wife’s lack of demonstrated ability to support herself.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There was no error of law in the conclusion reached by both courts below that cruel and inhuman treatment has been sufficiently demonstrated to satisfy the requirement of subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law (Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406, 411). In balancing the *868 several factors to be considered on this record, the courts were not bound to deny relief to plaintiff husband because of the duration of the marriage and defendant wife’s lack of demonstrated ability to support herself.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 N.E.2d 819, 60 N.Y.2d 866, 470 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandhu-v-sandhu-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack