Wessler v. Wessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wessler v. Wessler

195 A.D.2d 299, 600 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 299 (Wessler v. Wessler) 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

Wessler v. Wessler, 195 A.D.2d 299, 600 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered December 17, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action for a divorce, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint is sufficient to plead a cause of action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The allegations must be deemed to be true on a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, and are legally sufficient in that they would, if established, constitute serious misconduct, not mere incompatibil[300]*300ity, even taking into account the long duration of the parties’ marriage (see, Melnick v Melnick, 115 AD2d 416, 417; Grubman v Grubman, 156 AD2d 200). The complaint is also sufficient to plead a cause of action for divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment, as to which issues of fact exist.

Defendant’s request for clarification of the trial court’s discretion to maintain the family corporation’s "status quo”, is denied in view of the permission this Court has previously given the trial court to entertain a motion on this matter and defendant’s claim that she stands ready to submit such a motion.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions including that there should be a bifurcation of the legal and financial issues, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered December 17, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s cause of action for a divorce, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint is sufficient to plead a cause of action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The allegations must be deemed to be true on a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, and are legally sufficient in that they would, if established, constitute serious misconduct, not mere incompatibil[300]*300ity, even taking into account the long duration of the parties’ marriage (see, Melnick v Melnick, 115 AD2d 416, 417; Grubman v Grubman, 156 AD2d 200). The complaint is also sufficient to plead a cause of action for divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment, as to which issues of fact exist.

Defendant’s request for clarification of the trial court’s discretion to maintain the family corporation’s "status quo”, is denied in view of the permission this Court has previously given the trial court to entertain a motion on this matter and defendant’s claim that she stands ready to submit such a motion.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions including that there should be a bifurcation of the legal and financial issues, and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 299, 600 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wessler-v-wessler-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack