Bossom v. Bossom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bossom v. Bossom

141 A.D.2d 794, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7151

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

DecidedJune 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 794 (Bossom v. Bossom) 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

Bossom v. Bossom, 141 A.D.2d 794, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated August 4, 1987, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[795]*795It is well settled that stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where, as here, the terms are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by competent counsel (see, Schieck v Schieck, 138 AD2d 691; Ianielli v North Riv. Ins. Co., 119 AD2d 317, lv denied 69 NY2d 606). Absent a showing that the stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake or duress, such a stipulation will not be disturbed by the court (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, lv dismissed 66 NY2d 554; Alexander v Alexander, 112 AD2d 121). Based upon our review of the record, we are convinced that the appellant’s allegations constitute an insufficient basis upon which to vacate the stipulation of settlement in this action. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated August 4, 1987, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[795]*795It is well settled that stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where, as here, the terms are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by competent counsel (see, Schieck v Schieck, 138 AD2d 691; Ianielli v North Riv. Ins. Co., 119 AD2d 317, lv denied 69 NY2d 606). Absent a showing that the stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake or duress, such a stipulation will not be disturbed by the court (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, lv dismissed 66 NY2d 554; Alexander v Alexander, 112 AD2d 121). Based upon our review of the record, we are convinced that the appellant’s allegations constitute an insufficient basis upon which to vacate the stipulation of settlement in this action. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 794, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bossom-v-bossom-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack