Ferraiulo v. Ferraiulo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferraiulo v. Ferraiulo

221 A.D.2d 412, 634 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11983

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 412 (Ferraiulo v. Ferraiulo) 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

Ferraiulo v. Ferraiulo, 221 A.D.2d 412, 634 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered August 6, 1992, the former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated June 23, 1994, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment and the stipulation on which it was based.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside (see, Wilutis v Wilutis, 184 AD2d 639). Absent a showing that a stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed (Wilutis v Wilutis, supra; Bossom v Bossom, 141 AD2d 794). The appellant has failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered August 6, 1992, the former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated June 23, 1994, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment and the stipulation on which it was based.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside (see, Wilutis v Wilutis, 184 AD2d 639). Absent a showing that a stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed (Wilutis v Wilutis, supra; Bossom v Bossom, 141 AD2d 794). The appellant has failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 412, 634 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferraiulo-v-ferraiulo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack