Blackstock v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blackstock v. Price

51 A.D.3d 914, 858 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 914 (Blackstock v. Price) 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

Blackstock v. Price, 51 A.D.3d 914, 858 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify custody, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), dated May 16, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement or, in the alternative, for a hearing on the issue of custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother’s motion which was to vacate the stipulation of settlement. Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]; Bruckstein v Bruckstein, 271 AD2d 389, 390 [2000]). The mother’s general contentions that she felt pressured by the court to settle are insufficient to establish such a claim (see Ross v Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus, 26 AD3d 321 [2006]; Desantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d 311 [2005]; Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666, 667 [1996]; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1985]). More[915]*915over, the Family Court conducted a proper allocution of the mother, and determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation (see Matter of Siegel, 29 AD3d 914, 915 [2006]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to support her conclusory and nonspecific allegations relating to a change in circumstances that would justify a hearing on the issue of whether awarding her sole custody would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d at 478). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify custody, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), dated May 16, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement or, in the alternative, for a hearing on the issue of custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother’s motion which was to vacate the stipulation of settlement. Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]; Bruckstein v Bruckstein, 271 AD2d 389, 390 [2000]). The mother’s general contentions that she felt pressured by the court to settle are insufficient to establish such a claim (see Ross v Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus, 26 AD3d 321 [2006]; Desantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d 311 [2005]; Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666, 667 [1996]; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1985]). More[915]*915over, the Family Court conducted a proper allocution of the mother, and determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation (see Matter of Siegel, 29 AD3d 914, 915 [2006]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to support her conclusory and nonspecific allegations relating to a change in circumstances that would justify a hearing on the issue of whether awarding her sole custody would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d at 478). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 914, 858 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackstock-v-price-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack