Reed v. Reed

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sunshine, J.), dated November 14, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial, and upon

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff a judgment of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant’s conduct so endangered the plaintiffs physical and mental well-being as to render it unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with the defendant (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]; Brady v Brady, 64 NY2d 339 , 343 [1985]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) allegedly based on newly-discovered evidence. The evidence, a “Domestic Incident Report” from 1997, could have been discovered earlier with due diligence, and its introduction probably would not have produced a different result (see Jonas v Jonas, 4 AD3d 336 [2004]; Federated Conservationists of Westchester County v County of Westchester, 4 AD3d 326 , 327 [2004]; Feldstein v Rounick, 295 AD2d 398 , 399-400 [2002]; Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 274 AD2d 424 , 425 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.