Perito v. Perito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perito v. Perito

135 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 623 (Perito v. Perito) 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

Perito v. Perito, 135 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced in August 1980, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated June 30, 1986, which denied his motion to, inter alia, vacate a stipulation entered into by the parties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a stipulation in open court pursuant to which they agreed to have the value of the marital residence fixed by a court-appointed appraiser. Absent a showing that the stipulation was the product of overreaching, fraud or duress, there was no basis for setting aside the stipulation, and the parties are bound by the appraiser’s evaluation of the property (see, Harrington v Harrington, 103 AD2d 356). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced in August 1980, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated June 30, 1986, which denied his motion to, inter alia, vacate a stipulation entered into by the parties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into a stipulation in open court pursuant to which they agreed to have the value of the marital residence fixed by a court-appointed appraiser. Absent a showing that the stipulation was the product of overreaching, fraud or duress, there was no basis for setting aside the stipulation, and the parties are bound by the appraiser’s evaluation of the property (see, Harrington v Harrington, 103 AD2d 356). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 623, 522 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perito-v-perito-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack