Opinion
2013-10-2
Rebecca CHUSID, respondent, v. Daniel SILVERA, appellant (and another action).
Gassman Baiamonte Betts, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen Gassman and Charlotte Betts of counsel), for appellant. Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Lisa R. Schoenfeld, Stephen W. Schlissel, and Robert Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Gassman Baiamonte Betts, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Stephen Gassman and Charlotte Betts of counsel), for appellant. Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Lisa R. Schoenfeld, Stephen W. Schlissel, and Robert Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated April 3, 2012, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his motion which was to change venue of the action from Nassau County to New York County.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to change venue of the action from Nassau County to New York County. The resolution of credibility issues by the hearing court is entitled to deference on appeal, and will be upheld if supported by the evidence in the record ( see generally Shaw Funding, L.P. v. Samuel, 101 A.D.3d 1100, 955 N.Y.S.2d 896;Gass v. Gass, 42 A.D.3d 393, 840 N.Y.S.2d 58;Ahrens v. Chisena, 40 A.D.3d 787, 788, 836 N.Y.S.2d 278;Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v. Agostino, 34 A.D.3d 536, 538, 825 N.Y.S.2d 86). The record in this case supports the court's conclusion that the plaintiff maintained a residence in Nassau County in addition to the parties' marital residence in New York County during the parties' short marriage ( see CPLR 503[a]; Morreale v. 105 Page Homeowners Assn., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 689, 690, 884 N.Y.S.2d 93;Bennett v. Bennett, 49 A.D.3d 949, 949–950, 853 N.Y.S.2d 398;Bradley v. Plaisted, 277 A.D. 620, 621–622, 102 N.Y.S.2d 295;Jones–Ledbetter v. Biltmore Auto Sales, 229 A.D.2d 518, 519, 645 N.Y.S.2d 542;Mandelbaum v. Mandelbaum, 151 A.D.2d 727, 728, 542 N.Y.S.2d 791).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are not properly before this Court ( see Provident Bank v. Giannasca, 55 A.D.3d 812, 866 N.Y.S.2d 289).