Beata Culen, respondent, v. Matthew Culen, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Beata Culen, respondent, v. Matthew Culen, appellant.

2010–05727 (Index No. 1239/09)

Decided: May 31, 2011

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P. THOMAS A. DICKERSON L. PRISCILLA HALL SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ. Matthew Culen, Pelham, N.Y., appellant pro se. Joan Iacono, Bronxville, N.Y., for respondent.

Argued—May 9, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 20, 2010, which denied his motion, in effect, to set aside a jury verdict finding, in effect, that the plaintiff demonstrated her entitlement to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Following a trial, the jury found, in effect, that the plaintiff demonstrated her entitlement to a divorce based upon the defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment (see Domestic Relation Law § 170[1];  Brady v. Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339).   Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, in effect, to set aside the verdict.   We affirm.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the jury's verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence as there was a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499;  see Bernholc v. Bornstein, 72 AD3d 625, 627).   Furthermore, the jury's determination was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see Lolik v. Big v. Supermarket, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746;  Bernholc v. Bornstein, 72 AD3d 625).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard