From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pollack v. Pollack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-00121

Submitted January 4, 2002.

January 28, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, (Jonas, J.), entered November 24, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.

Marvin Pollack, Middletown, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Susan von Ohlen, f/k/a Susan Pollack, Great Neck, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff demonstrated through her own testimony that the defendant's behavior so adversely affected her physical and mental well-being that it became improper for her to cohabit with him (see, Fuegel v. Fuegel, 271 A.D.2d 404; French v. French, 262 A.D.2d 280; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 255 A.D.2d 497). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pollack v. Pollack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Pollack v. Pollack

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN POLLACK, respondent, v. MARVIN POLLACK, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 28, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 628

Citing Cases

Rupp-Elmasri v. Elmasri

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the defendant's…

Cordoves v. Cordoves

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff…