Margaret C. v. Paul F.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margaret C. v. Paul F.C.

73 A.D.3d 567, 899 N.Y.S.2d 848

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

DecidedMay 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 567 (Margaret C. v. Paul F.C.) 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

Margaret C. v. Paul F.C., 73 A.D.3d 567, 899 N.Y.S.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered October 8, 2008, which denied defendant husband’s motion to vacate the child support provisions contained in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The stipulation satisfies the requirement of Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h) that it specify the parties’ reasons for deviating from the guidelines of the Child Support Standards Act by stating that the parties “consider” its provisions relating to child support “to be fair and reasonable, based on many considerations,” including their respective finances and the stipulation’s other financial provisions, which were clearly articulated. This statement is less specific than the one we upheld in Gallet v Wasserman (280 AD2d 296, 297-298 [2001]). The husband relies on Klein v Klein (246 AD2d 195, 200 [1998]), which held that an essentially identical statement was insuf[568]*568ficient. As we stated in Blaikie v Mortner (274 AD2d 95, 100 [2000]), “the husband, an attorney, struck a bargain with which he is no longer satisfied, and he now parses the precise phrasing of some of the protective statutory acknowledgments as a means to invalidate an arrangement he freely and knowingly entered.”

We have considered the husband’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered October 8, 2008, which denied defendant husband’s motion to vacate the child support provisions contained in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The stipulation satisfies the requirement of Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h) that it specify the parties’ reasons for deviating from the guidelines of the Child Support Standards Act by stating that the parties “consider” its provisions relating to child support “to be fair and reasonable, based on many considerations,” including their respective finances and the stipulation’s other financial provisions, which were clearly articulated. This statement is less specific than the one we upheld in Gallet v Wasserman (280 AD2d 296, 297-298 [2001]). The husband relies on Klein v Klein (246 AD2d 195, 200 [1998]), which held that an essentially identical statement was insuf[568]*568ficient. As we stated in Blaikie v Mortner (274 AD2d 95, 100 [2000]), “the husband, an attorney, struck a bargain with which he is no longer satisfied, and he now parses the precise phrasing of some of the protective statutory acknowledgments as a means to invalidate an arrangement he freely and knowingly entered.”

We have considered the husband’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 567, 899 N.Y.S.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-c-v-paul-fc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack