Opinion
July 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
We affirm essentially for the reasons stated by Justice Schackman in his decisions of May 24, 1989 and August 16, 1989. We would note that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the husband to amend his counterclaim to include additional allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment during trial. (See, Agri Fin. v. Senter, 105 A.D.2d 560, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 603.) The wife did not show the type of prejudice that would warrant denial of such an application. (See, Pegno Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 95 A.D.2d 655, 656.)
We have considered all of the substantive arguments raised in both the appeal and cross appeal and find no reason to disturb the IAS court's exercise of discretion in such areas as determining whether there has been cruel and inhuman treatment (see, e.g., Hessen v. Hessen, 33 N.Y.2d 406, 411), dividing the marital property pursuant to equitable distribution (see, e.g., Lydick v. Lydick, 130 A.D.2d 915, 916) and awarding maintenance, child support, attorney's fees and account fees (see, e.g., Frankel v. Frankel, 150 A.D.2d 520). We find that none of the arguments raised by either side "is anything more than his [or her] view of the evidence, which gives this court no reason to disturb the trial court's exercise of its wide discretion" (Leider v. Otero-Leider, 161 A.D.2d 277, 278).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.