Karonski v. Karonski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karonski v. Karonski

252 A.D.2d 354, 675 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7892

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 354 (Karonski v. Karonski) 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

Karonski v. Karonski, 252 A.D.2d 354, 675 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered January 23, 1998, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation granting defendant custody of the parties’ child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for vacatur of the stipulation he had entered into in open court, while represented by counsel, which stipulation awarded custody of the parties’ child to defendant. Moreover, none of the circumstances cited by plaintiff warrants the conclusion that a custodial change would be in the child’s best interests (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered January 23, 1998, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation granting defendant custody of the parties’ child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for vacatur of the stipulation he had entered into in open court, while represented by counsel, which stipulation awarded custody of the parties’ child to defendant. Moreover, none of the circumstances cited by plaintiff warrants the conclusion that a custodial change would be in the child’s best interests (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 354, 675 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karonski-v-karonski-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack