Gaines v. Gaines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaines v. Gaines

218 A.D.2d 683, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708

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

DecidedAugust 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 683 (Gaines v. Gaines) 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

Gaines v. Gaines, 218 A.D.2d 683, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for equitable distribution of marital property after the entry of a judgment of divorce, the former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated September 8, 1993, which denied her motion to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[684]*684The Supreme Court properly denied the former wife’s motion to set aside the parties’ stipulation of settlement. The wife, having accepted substantial benefits under the agreement, is deemed to have ratified the agreement and is precluded from attempting to set it aside (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957; Akgul v Akgul, 175 AD2d 194; Greenfield v Greenfield, 147 AD2d 440; Cordero v Cordero, 135 AD2d 483). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for equitable distribution of marital property after the entry of a judgment of divorce, the former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated September 8, 1993, which denied her motion to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[684]*684The Supreme Court properly denied the former wife’s motion to set aside the parties’ stipulation of settlement. The wife, having accepted substantial benefits under the agreement, is deemed to have ratified the agreement and is precluded from attempting to set it aside (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957; Akgul v Akgul, 175 AD2d 194; Greenfield v Greenfield, 147 AD2d 440; Cordero v Cordero, 135 AD2d 483). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 683, 630 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaines-v-gaines-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack