Falk v. Falk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falk v. Falk

74 A.D.3d 1841, 902 N.Y.S.2d 495

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

DecidedJune 11, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1841 (Falk v. Falk) 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

Falk v. Falk, 74 A.D.3d 1841, 902 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered March 25, 2009. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate the economic provisions of a judgment of divorce.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order denying defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the economic provisions of the judgment of divorce, but our reasoning differs from that of Supreme Court. The judgment of divorce incorporated but did not merge the parties’ stipulation and, because the motion sought to revise the stipulation, the court erred in denying the motion on the merits. The court instead “should have denied the motion on the ground that ‘a motion is not the proper vehicle for challenging a [stipulation] incorporated but not merged in[ ] a divorce judgment,’ ” and defendant should have commenced a plenary action seeking recission or reformation of the stipulation (Gartley v Gartley, 15 AD3d 995, 996 [2005]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered March 25, 2009. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate the economic provisions of a judgment of divorce.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order denying defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the economic provisions of the judgment of divorce, but our reasoning differs from that of Supreme Court. The judgment of divorce incorporated but did not merge the parties’ stipulation and, because the motion sought to revise the stipulation, the court erred in denying the motion on the merits. The court instead “should have denied the motion on the ground that ‘a motion is not the proper vehicle for challenging a [stipulation] incorporated but not merged in[ ] a divorce judgment,’ ” and defendant should have commenced a plenary action seeking recission or reformation of the stipulation (Gartley v Gartley, 15 AD3d 995, 996 [2005]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1841, 902 N.Y.S.2d 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falk-v-falk-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack