Prendergast v. Prendergast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prendergast v. Prendergast

212 A.D.2d 764, 624 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 764 (Prendergast v. Prendergast) 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

Prendergast v. Prendergast, 212 A.D.2d 764, 624 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for divorce, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 21, 1993, which granted the plaintiff a divorce upon an open-court stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the judgment must be dismissed because a party may not appeal from an order or judgment entered upon a stipulation (see, Hagfors v Hagfors, 200 AD2d 873, 874; Kalra v Kalra, 170 AD2d 579; Hopkins v Hopkins, 97 AD2d 457). The defendant’s proper remedy concerning the propriety of the parties’ settlement agreement is a motion in the Supreme Court to set aside the stipulation (see, Hagfors v Hag[765]*765fors, supra; Hopkins v Hopkins, supra). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for divorce, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 21, 1993, which granted the plaintiff a divorce upon an open-court stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the judgment must be dismissed because a party may not appeal from an order or judgment entered upon a stipulation (see, Hagfors v Hagfors, 200 AD2d 873, 874; Kalra v Kalra, 170 AD2d 579; Hopkins v Hopkins, 97 AD2d 457). The defendant’s proper remedy concerning the propriety of the parties’ settlement agreement is a motion in the Supreme Court to set aside the stipulation (see, Hagfors v Hag[765]*765fors, supra; Hopkins v Hopkins, supra). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 764, 624 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prendergast-v-prendergast-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack