Sarai v. Sarai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarai v. Sarai

267 A.D.2d 295, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12866

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 295 (Sarai v. Sarai) 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

Sarai v. Sarai, 267 A.D.2d 295, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 13, 1993, the former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 6, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was to set aside the maintenance provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 28, 1993.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s allegations are insufficient to form a basis for vacatur of the stipulation of settlement in this action (see, Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892). The record supports the court’s determination that the appellant voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation with competent counsel at his side (see, Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573; Ruxton v Ruxton, 181 AD2d 876). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was to vacate the stipulation was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, 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 by judgment dated July 13, 1993, the former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated October 6, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was to set aside the maintenance provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 28, 1993.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s allegations are insufficient to form a basis for vacatur of the stipulation of settlement in this action (see, Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666; Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892). The record supports the court’s determination that the appellant voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation with competent counsel at his side (see, Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573; Ruxton v Ruxton, 181 AD2d 876). Accordingly, that branch of his motion which was to vacate the stipulation was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 295, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarai-v-sarai-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack