Ploetz v. Ploetz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ploetz v. Ploetz

30 A.D.3d 1026, 815 N.Y.S.2d 882

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

DecidedJune 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 1026 (Ploetz v. Ploetz) 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

Ploetz v. Ploetz, 30 A.D.3d 1026, 815 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (James E. Euken, A.J.), entered February 3, 2005. The order denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate the parties’ judgment of divorce.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

[1027]*1027Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate the parties’ judgment of divorce on the ground that the stipulation of settlement incorporated into the judgment is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. “[Stipulations of settlement made in open court by parties represented by counsel after engaging in extensive negotiation with full knowledge of the assets to be distributed will not lightly be set aside” (Turk v Turk, 276 AD2d 953, 954 [2000]; see Cantamessa v Cantamessa, 170 AD2d 792, 793 [1991]). Here, the conclusory assertions of plaintiff in support of the motion “failed to carry even the burden necessary for a hearing” on her challenge to the stipulation of settlement (Leahy v Leahy, 9 AD3d 351, 352 [2004]; see Carlson v Carlson, 255 AD2d 873 [1998]). Present—Scudder, J.E, Gorski, Martoche, Green and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (James E. Euken, A.J.), entered February 3, 2005. The order denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate the parties’ judgment of divorce.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

[1027]*1027Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate the parties’ judgment of divorce on the ground that the stipulation of settlement incorporated into the judgment is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. “[Stipulations of settlement made in open court by parties represented by counsel after engaging in extensive negotiation with full knowledge of the assets to be distributed will not lightly be set aside” (Turk v Turk, 276 AD2d 953, 954 [2000]; see Cantamessa v Cantamessa, 170 AD2d 792, 793 [1991]). Here, the conclusory assertions of plaintiff in support of the motion “failed to carry even the burden necessary for a hearing” on her challenge to the stipulation of settlement (Leahy v Leahy, 9 AD3d 351, 352 [2004]; see Carlson v Carlson, 255 AD2d 873 [1998]). Present—Scudder, J.E, Gorski, Martoche, Green and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 1026, 815 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ploetz-v-ploetz-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack