Kingsley v. Kingsley

69 A.D.3d 1105, 893 N.Y.2d 350
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1105 (Kingsley v. Kingsley) 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
Kingsley v. Kingsley, 69 A.D.3d 1105, 893 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Cardona, EJ.

In June 2001, defendant commenced an action seeking a divorce from plaintiff, his spouse of 31 years. Plaintiff and defendant are both attorneys who were represented by separate counsel during the proceedings and hired experts for the purpose of, among other things, determining the value of defendant’s law practice. On December 16, 2002, the parties entered into an “opting out” stipulation of settlement in open court that purported to dispose of all pending issues, including equitable distribution. Notably, the stipulation included a provision that if it is “subsequently determined that either party has failed to disclose any asset that would be determined to be a marital asset, then the other party retains his or her interest in that marital asset, the amount of which to be fixed by an appropriate court at that time.” The stipulation was incorporated, but did not merge, into the subsequent judgment of divorce entered in plaintiffs favor. Thereafter, in May 2008, plaintiff brought this action seeking the rescission of the stipulation alleging, among other things, that defendant failed to disclose the true value of his law practice by selectively complying with disclosure and concealing the existence of several contingency fee cases that should have been disclosed in the course of discovery. In lieu of an answer, defendant submitted a motion seeking dismissal of the complaint and/or summary judgment. Supreme Court denied that motion, prompting this appeal by defendant.

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

Related

Vega v. Papaleo
85 A.D.3d 1363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.3d 1105, 893 N.Y.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsley-v-kingsley-nyappdiv-2010.