Sacks v. Sacks

220 A.D.2d 736, 633 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10656
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 30, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 736 (Sacks v. Sacks) 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
Sacks v. Sacks, 220 A.D.2d 736, 633 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an [737]*737action to rescind and reform certain provisions contained in a stipulation of settlement and a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated March 23, 1987, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 17, 1994, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff husband commenced this action to rescind and reform certain provisions contained in a stipulation of settlement which did not merge into the parties’ judgment of divorce on the ground that those provisions were unfair and unconscionable. We reject the defendant wife’s contentions that the plaintiff is precluded from bringing this action on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds or because he failed to appeal from the judgment of divorce or a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. It is well settled that either party can bring a separate plenary action after the divorce judgment in order to enforce or challenge the terms of a stipulation of settlement which is not merged into the judgment. This is so because the stipulation of settlement survives as a separate contract (see, Siegel v Siegel, 197 AD2d 569; Fine v Fine, 191 AD2d 410; Lambert v Lambert, 142 AD2d 557; Culp v Culp, 117 AD2d 700).

The defendant’s contention that the action is barred by laches is without merit.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sanders v. Sanders
2025 NY Slip Op 00548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Tema v. Tema
2024 NY Slip Op 02720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Michael Rodger Brown
S.D. New York, 2020
Anderson v. Anderson
2017 NY Slip Op 6786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Fine v. Fine
26 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hoyt v. Hoyt
307 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bukovinsky v. Bukovinsky
270 A.D.2d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 A.D.2d 736, 633 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacks-v-sacks-nyappdiv-1995.