Burton v. Burton

148 A.D.2d 488, 540 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 13, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 488 (Burton v. Burton) 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
Burton v. Burton, 148 A.D.2d 488, 540 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 23, 1987, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated July 17, 1987, which, denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement and the ensuing judgment of divorce and granted the plaintiff wife’s cross motion, inter alia, to compel compliance with the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant has failed to establish any basis for vacatur of the oral stipulation entered into in open court. We have repeatedly held that relief from a stipulation of settlement will be granted only upon a showing of good cause, such as collusion, mistake, fraud, accident or a similar ground (see, Smith v Smith, 129 AD2d 575; Jensen v Jensen, 110 AD2d 679; De Jose v De Jose, 104 AD2d 629). At bar, the defendant’s allegations of unconscionability, fraud, overreaching, unfairness and incompetence of counsel as cause to vacate the stipulation are unsupported by the record. Moreover, neither the stipulation on its face nor the circumstances surrounding its making suggest that it was arrived at other than fairly (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63). Under the circumstances, the defendant’s unsubstantiated claims that he was too ill and emotionally upset to understand the terms of the agreement are insufficient to warrant a vacatur of the stipulation (see, Smith v Smith, supra; Zioncheck v Zioncheck, 99 [489]*489AD2d 563). Brown, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Star v. Star
260 A.D.2d 363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 A.D.2d 488, 540 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-burton-nyappdiv-1989.