Abeido v. Abeido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abeido v. Abeido

54 A.D.3d 330, 863 N.Y.S.2d 64

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 5, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 330 (Abeido v. Abeido) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abeido v. Abeido, 54 A.D.3d 330, 863 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Henry, J), dated June 29, 2007, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated November 14, 2006, which, upon the consent of both parties, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An oral stipulation entered into by the parties in “open court” is binding (CPLR 2104; see Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892 [1985]). “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” (Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d at 893). Here, the mother and father agreed to the order of custody in open court. The Supreme Court specifically informed the father, who was represented by counsel, that the order of custody would be final. The father acknowledged that he was agreeing to it voluntarily. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the father’s motion to vacate the order of custody (cf. Matter of Stefanik v Roberts, 266 AD2d 758 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Henry, J), dated June 29, 2007, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated November 14, 2006, which, upon the consent of both parties, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An oral stipulation entered into by the parties in “open court” is binding (CPLR 2104; see Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892 [1985]). “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” (Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d at 893). Here, the mother and father agreed to the order of custody in open court. The Supreme Court specifically informed the father, who was represented by counsel, that the order of custody would be final. The father acknowledged that he was agreeing to it voluntarily. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the father’s motion to vacate the order of custody (cf. Matter of Stefanik v Roberts, 266 AD2d 758 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 330, 863 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abeido-v-abeido-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack