Starayeva v. Starayev

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Starayeva v. Starayev

50 A.D.3d 354, 858 N.Y.S.2d 88

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

DecidedApril 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 354 (Starayeva v. Starayev) 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

Starayeva v. Starayev, 50 A.D.3d 354, 858 N.Y.S.2d 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered June 25, 2007, which enforced the child support provision in a stipulation settling a divorce action, and calculated and directed defendant’s payment of child support arrears, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s alleged lack of understanding of English does not tend to show fraud or overreaching such as might warrant invalidating the stipulation (see Matter of Sunshine, 51 AD2d 326, 328 [1976], affd 40 NY2d 875 [1976]). Furthermore, defendant’s pro se papers in both the motion court and this Court indicate that his English was strong enough to have grasped the fairly straightforward provisions of the stipulation in issue (cf. Matter of Sarah K., 66 NY2d 223, 241 [1985], cert denied sub nom. Kosher v Stamatis, 475 US 1108 [1986] [one who signs a document is presumed to have understood and agreed to it]). Defendant did not cross-move for a downward modification (Domestic Relations Law § 244), and his challenges to the motion court’s finding as to the arrears lack support in the record. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered June 25, 2007, which enforced the child support provision in a stipulation settling a divorce action, and calculated and directed defendant’s payment of child support arrears, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s alleged lack of understanding of English does not tend to show fraud or overreaching such as might warrant invalidating the stipulation (see Matter of Sunshine, 51 AD2d 326, 328 [1976], affd 40 NY2d 875 [1976]). Furthermore, defendant’s pro se papers in both the motion court and this Court indicate that his English was strong enough to have grasped the fairly straightforward provisions of the stipulation in issue (cf. Matter of Sarah K., 66 NY2d 223, 241 [1985], cert denied sub nom. Kosher v Stamatis, 475 US 1108 [1986] [one who signs a document is presumed to have understood and agreed to it]). Defendant did not cross-move for a downward modification (Domestic Relations Law § 244), and his challenges to the motion court’s finding as to the arrears lack support in the record. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 354, 858 N.Y.S.2d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starayeva-v-starayev-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack