In re the Estate Irace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate Irace

21 A.D.3d 557, 799 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 557 (In re the Estate Irace) 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

In re the Estate Irace, 21 A.D.3d 557, 799 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[558]*558In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property allegedly withheld from an estate, Anne Marie DeSimone, also known as Anna DeSimone, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated July 25, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and an amended decree of the same court dated July 25, 2001, and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court “will not be set aside on facts less than needed to avoid a contract, e.g., fraud, . . . [overreaching], mistake . . . , [duress], or some other ground of similar nature” (Varveris v Fisher, 229 AD2d 573, 574 [1996]; see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Desantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d 311 [2005]; Nash v Y & T Distribs., 207 AD2d 779, 780 [1994]). The record fails to support the appellant’s contention that the stipulation of settlement was the product of duress, collusion, mistake, or fraud. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied her motion, inter alia, to vacate it. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

[558]*558In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property allegedly withheld from an estate, Anne Marie DeSimone, also known as Anna DeSimone, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated July 25, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and an amended decree of the same court dated July 25, 2001, and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court “will not be set aside on facts less than needed to avoid a contract, e.g., fraud, . . . [overreaching], mistake . . . , [duress], or some other ground of similar nature” (Varveris v Fisher, 229 AD2d 573, 574 [1996]; see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Desantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d 311 [2005]; Nash v Y & T Distribs., 207 AD2d 779, 780 [1994]). The record fails to support the appellant’s contention that the stipulation of settlement was the product of duress, collusion, mistake, or fraud. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied her motion, inter alia, to vacate it. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 557, 799 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-irace-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack