Del Giudice v. Del Giudice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Del Giudice v. Del Giudice

56 A.D.2d 883, 392 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 883 (Del Giudice v. Del Giudice) 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

Del Giudice v. Del Giudice, 56 A.D.2d 883, 392 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the defendant husband was granted a divorce by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 14, 1976, he appeals from an order of the same court, dated July 16, 1976, which denied his motion to vacate stated portions of the said judgment which, inter alia, directed him to pay plaintiff a lump sum of $15,000. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff initiated an action for divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant interposed a counterclaim for divorce based upon the same ground. At the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff withdrew her complaint and the defendant proceeded to trial. A stipulation between the parties was received in evidence. It provided, inter alia, for the lump sum payment of $15,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff, $11,500 of which was for the plaintiff and $3,500 of which was for attorney’s fees. The parties indicated that they understood and consented to the stipulation. Although the judgment contained the pertinent portions of the stipulation, the stipulation was not merged into the judgment. Thereafter the defendant’s motion to vacate the portions of the judgment relating to the stipulation, upon the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct, was denied. We agree. The record does not indicate that the defendant was induced to enter into the stipulation by the fraud, misconduct or coercion of the plaintiff. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the defendant husband was granted a divorce by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 14, 1976, he appeals from an order of the same court, dated July 16, 1976, which denied his motion to vacate stated portions of the said judgment which, inter alia, directed him to pay plaintiff a lump sum of $15,000. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff initiated an action for divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant interposed a counterclaim for divorce based upon the same ground. At the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff withdrew her complaint and the defendant proceeded to trial. A stipulation between the parties was received in evidence. It provided, inter alia, for the lump sum payment of $15,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff, $11,500 of which was for the plaintiff and $3,500 of which was for attorney’s fees. The parties indicated that they understood and consented to the stipulation. Although the judgment contained the pertinent portions of the stipulation, the stipulation was not merged into the judgment. Thereafter the defendant’s motion to vacate the portions of the judgment relating to the stipulation, upon the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct, was denied. We agree. The record does not indicate that the defendant was induced to enter into the stipulation by the fraud, misconduct or coercion of the plaintiff. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 883, 392 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-giudice-v-del-giudice-nyappdiv-1977.