Sass v. Sass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sass v. Sass

66 A.D.2d 562, 886 N.Y.S.2d 597

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 562 (Sass v. Sass) 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

Sass v. Sass, 66 A.D.2d 562, 886 N.Y.S.2d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered July 25, 2008, dissolving the parties’ marriage and incorporating the terms of a stipulation entered into March 19, 2008 settling, inter alia, custody issues, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the judgment includes terms that are inconsistent with the stipulation of settlement and therefore does not accurately reflect the stipulation is not preserved for appellate review (see 22 NYCRR 202.48 [c] [2]; Rowley v Amrhein, 64 AD3d 469 [2009]).

Defendant failed to establish that she entered into the stipulation under duress (see Mahon v Moorman, 234 AD2d 1 [1996]) or that she was not advised of the Child Support Standards Act (codified in Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] and Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [h]). Nor does she appear to be objecting to any specific component of the parties’ child support arrangement (see Blaikie v Mortner, 274 AD2d 95, 99-100, 101 [2000]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered July 25, 2008, dissolving the parties’ marriage and incorporating the terms of a stipulation entered into March 19, 2008 settling, inter alia, custody issues, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the judgment includes terms that are inconsistent with the stipulation of settlement and therefore does not accurately reflect the stipulation is not preserved for appellate review (see 22 NYCRR 202.48 [c] [2]; Rowley v Amrhein, 64 AD3d 469 [2009]).

Defendant failed to establish that she entered into the stipulation under duress (see Mahon v Moorman, 234 AD2d 1 [1996]) or that she was not advised of the Child Support Standards Act (codified in Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] and Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [h]). Nor does she appear to be objecting to any specific component of the parties’ child support arrangement (see Blaikie v Mortner, 274 AD2d 95, 99-100, 101 [2000]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 562, 886 N.Y.S.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sass-v-sass-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack