In re Landis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Landis

89 A.D.3d 642, 933 N.Y.2d 547

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published

Opinion

[643]*643As the parties concede, the IAS court erred when it acted on its own initiative in vacating the parties’ stipulation of settlement of this article 81 proceeding (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Charlop v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 64 AD3d 486, 486 [2009]). Rather, the proper course of action would have been to hold an evidentiary hearing (see Kabir v Kabir, 85 AD3d 1127, 1127-1128 [2011]). Alternatively, the petitioner or cross petitioner could have moved for enforcement of the stipulation (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Motion to strike briefs of cross petitioner and temporary personal needs guardian denied.

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

[643]*643As the parties concede, the IAS court erred when it acted on its own initiative in vacating the parties’ stipulation of settlement of this article 81 proceeding (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Charlop v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 64 AD3d 486, 486 [2009]). Rather, the proper course of action would have been to hold an evidentiary hearing (see Kabir v Kabir, 85 AD3d 1127, 1127-1128 [2011]). Alternatively, the petitioner or cross petitioner could have moved for enforcement of the stipulation (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Motion to strike briefs of cross petitioner and temporary personal needs guardian denied.

In re Landis, 89 A.D.3d 642, 933 N.Y.2d 547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 642 (In re Landis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related