| Bennett v Bennett |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01544 [82 AD3d 1294] |
| March 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| —Susan M. Bennett, Respondent, v Jeffrey H. Bennett,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Peters, J. Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (Nolan, Jr., J.), enteredMarch 9, 2009 in Saratoga County, granting plaintiff a divorce, upon a decision of the court.
The parties were married in 1980 and have six children. Plaintiff left the marital residence inMay 2004 and commenced this action for divorce in October 2006. Following a bench trial,Supreme Court granted plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
An action for divorce on the basis of cruel and inhuman treatment "requires a showing ofserious misconduct and, with a long-standing marriage, a high degree of proof showing a patternof cruel and inhuman treatment affecting the plaintiff's physical or mental health such thatcontinued cohabitation would be unsafe or improper" (Sanacore v Sanacore, 74 AD3d 1468, 1470 [2010]; see Kung v Kung, 69 AD3d 1295,1295 [2010]; Xiaokang Xu v XiaolingShirley He, 24 AD3d 862, 863 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 710 [2006]). SupremeCourt, as the trier of fact, has broad discretion in determining whether a spouse's conduct rises tothe level of cruel and inhuman treatment and its factual determinations and assessment of witnesscredibility are entitled to great deference (see Kung v Kung, 69 AD3d at 1295; Freas v Freas, 33 AD3d 1069,1070 [2006]; Xiaokang Xu v Xiaoling Shirley He, 24 AD3d at 863; Nichols v Nichols, 19 AD3d 775,777 [2005]). As such, the court's determination will not be lightly overturned on appeal (seeXiaokang Xu v Xiaoling Shirley He, 24 AD3d at 863; Pfoltzer v Morris-Pfoltzer, 9 AD3d 615, 616 [2004]).[*2]
The credible evidence adduced at trial revealed thatplaintiff was subjected to authoritarian, demeaning and controlling treatment by defendantthroughout their 26-year marriage. According to plaintiff's detailed and uncontradicted testimony,defendant enforced a strict, hierarchical structure of the household and expected her to be fullysubmissive to him. Defendant's conduct also included calling plaintiff names, isolating her fromfamily and friends, undermining her authority as a parent, ridiculing and making disparagingcomments about her and her physical appearance in front of the children, and preventing herfrom leaving the marital residence by, among other things, disabling the family vehicle.Moreover, defendant refused to engage in sexual relations with plaintiff for several years prior toher leaving the marital residence in 2004. Plaintiff offered evidence, which Supreme Courtdeemed credible, that defendant's conduct caused her to feel disrespected, emotionallybroken-down, depressed and to have suicidal thoughts. She also vacated the marital residence onmore than one occasion due to defendant's conduct and, ultimately, sought counseling. In light ofthis proof, we find a sufficient basis for Supreme Court's conclusion that defendant engaged in apattern of emotional neglect, dominion and control which endangered plaintiff's mentalwell-being, thereby rendering it improper for her to continue to cohabit with him (see Armstrong v Armstrong, 72 AD3d1409, 1411 [2010]; Kung v Kung, 69 AD3d at 1295-1296; Freas v Freas, 33AD3d at 1071-1072; Conrad vConrad, 16 AD3d 794, 795 [2005]).
Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before us, have beenreviewed and found to be lacking in merit.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amendedjudgment is affirmed, without costs.