DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that what constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment during a marriage is a question of fact which will depend upon the circumstances of each case, and that the determination of the trial court in this regard is entitled to great deference ( see, Brady v. Brady, 64 N.Y.2d 339; Hessen v. Hessen, 33 N.Y.2d 406; Soto v. Soto, 216 A.D.2d 455). In this case the husband demonstrated through his own testimony and that of his therapist that the wife's behavior so adversely affected his mental well-being that it became improper for him to cohabit with her ( see, Meltzer v. Meltzer, 255 A.D.2d 497 [2d Dept., Nov. 23, 1998]; Bulger v. Bulger, 88 A.D.2d 895). The wife's contrary testimony that she did not engage in such behavior merely posed a credibility question which the court was entitled to resolve against her ( see, Gadomski v. Gadomski, 245 A.D.2d 579).
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the husband a judicial separation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 200 (1).