Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Seraphima SHAGOURY, respondent, v. Stephen SHAGOURY, appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated May 24, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granted the plaintiff wife a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial, before a different Justice.
The plaintiff wife commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The husband counterclaimed for a judgment of separation on the same ground, but based, in effect, on allegations of abandonment and adultery. Contrary to the husband's contention, the wife presented evidence which, if believed, would support the Supreme Court's finding of cruel and inhuman treatment (see Hessen v. Hessen, 33 N.Y.2d 406, 411, 353 N.Y.S.2d 421, 308 N.E.2d 891; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 255 A.D.2d 497, 497-498, 680 N.Y.S.2d 618). Nevertheless, under the unusual circumstances presented, a new trial is required because the trial court impermissibly and repeatedly precluded the husband from eliciting relevant testimony in his defense, as well as in support of the factual allegations contained in his counterclaim, and thereby deprived him of a fair trial (see Arbital v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 A.D.2d 560, 561, 723 N.Y.S.2d 386; cf. Habib v. Habib, 278 A.D.2d 277, 278, 717 N.Y.S.2d 317).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 03, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)