Goldfeld v. Goldfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldfeld v. Goldfeld

165 A.D.2d 770

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 770 (Goldfeld v. Goldfeld) 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

Goldfeld v. Goldfeld, 165 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 17, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the oral stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on October 25, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On October 25, 1989, in the presence of their attorneys, the parties appeared before Justice Wilk in open court and agreed to the provisions of a stipulation of settlement. Subsequently, defendant moved to vacate and set aside the stipulation of settlement on the grounds that it was unfair and unconscionable. Upon review of the record before the IAS court and the terms of the stipulation of settlement, we agree that the stipulation was neither the product of coercion nor unconscionable (Yuda v Yuda, 143 AD2d 657; Grunfeld v Grunfeld, 123 AD2d 64).

Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 17, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the oral stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on October 25, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On October 25, 1989, in the presence of their attorneys, the parties appeared before Justice Wilk in open court and agreed to the provisions of a stipulation of settlement. Subsequently, defendant moved to vacate and set aside the stipulation of settlement on the grounds that it was unfair and unconscionable. Upon review of the record before the IAS court and the terms of the stipulation of settlement, we agree that the stipulation was neither the product of coercion nor unconscionable (Yuda v Yuda, 143 AD2d 657; Grunfeld v Grunfeld, 123 AD2d 64).

Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfeld-v-goldfeld-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack