Sandhu v. Sandhu — 60 N.Y.2d 866

Majority

p. 866

Tireth S. Sandhu, Respondent, v Manmohan Sandhu, Appellant.

Decided November 22, 1983

p. 867

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Dana Lee Van Buskirk for appellant.

Louis S. Labert for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

There was no error of law in the conclusion reached by both courts below that cruel and inhuman treatment has been sufficiently demonstrated to satisfy the requirement of subdivision (1) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law (Hessen v Hessen, 33 NY2d 406 , 411). In balancing the

p. 868

several factors to be considered on this record, the courts were not bound to deny relief to plaintiff husband because of the duration of the marriage and defendant wife’s lack of demonstrated ability to support herself.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited

Hessen v. Hessen 33 NY2d 406 N.Y. 1974-02-21 at 411 p. 867

Statutes and regulations cited

Domestic Relations Law p. 867