Gadomski v. Gadomski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gadomski v. Gadomski

189 A.D.2d 800, 592 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 800 (Gadomski v. Gadomski) 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

Gadomski v. Gadomski, 189 A.D.2d 800, 592 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated September 7, 1990, as (1) denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated November 10, 1988, and (2) awarded the plaintiff counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that 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 the stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed (see, Schieck v Schieck, 138 AD2d 691). We find that the Supreme Court, after a full evidentiary hearing, properly refused to disturb the stipulation of settlement between the parties.

Moreover, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the wife (see, Domestic Relations Law § 238). Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated September 7, 1990, as (1) denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated November 10, 1988, and (2) awarded the plaintiff counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that 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 the stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed (see, Schieck v Schieck, 138 AD2d 691). We find that the Supreme Court, after a full evidentiary hearing, properly refused to disturb the stipulation of settlement between the parties.

Moreover, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the wife (see, Domestic Relations Law § 238). Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 800, 592 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gadomski-v-gadomski-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack