Cee v. Cee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cee v. Cee

221 A.D.2d 242, 634 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 242 (Cee v. Cee) 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

Cee v. Cee, 221 A.D.2d 242, 634 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, denied plaintiff’s motion to, inter alia, vacate the child custody stipulation entered into by the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the child custody stipulation, which granted the parties joint legal custody of their son, was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to substantiate her claim that she was fraudulently induced to enter the agreement by virtue of the defendant’s concealment of his sexual relationship with the child’s former nanny from both the court and the court appointed expert. Although defendant conceded that a sexual relationship existed with the nanny subsequent to the execution of the stipulation, plaintiff was unable to establish that a sexual relationship existed prior to the expert’s evaluation and the execution of the stipulation.

[243]*243In any event, the IAS Court properly concluded that the expert’s recommendation was not significantly influenced by the alleged taint. There are numerous indications in the expert’s report that both parties are devoted parents. A sound basis in the record exists for the court’s determination that joint custody was in the child’s best interests. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, denied plaintiff’s motion to, inter alia, vacate the child custody stipulation entered into by the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the child custody stipulation, which granted the parties joint legal custody of their son, was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to substantiate her claim that she was fraudulently induced to enter the agreement by virtue of the defendant’s concealment of his sexual relationship with the child’s former nanny from both the court and the court appointed expert. Although defendant conceded that a sexual relationship existed with the nanny subsequent to the execution of the stipulation, plaintiff was unable to establish that a sexual relationship existed prior to the expert’s evaluation and the execution of the stipulation.

[243]*243In any event, the IAS Court properly concluded that the expert’s recommendation was not significantly influenced by the alleged taint. There are numerous indications in the expert’s report that both parties are devoted parents. A sound basis in the record exists for the court’s determination that joint custody was in the child’s best interests. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 242, 634 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cee-v-cee-nyappdiv-1995.