Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson

97 A.D.3d 737, 947 N.Y.2d 906

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.3d 737 (Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson) 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

Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson, 97 A.D.3d 737, 947 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

A challenge to a stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce must be made by plenary action, and not by motion (see Weissman v Weissman, 68 AD3d 981 [2009]; Reiter v Reiter, 39 AD3d 616 [2007]; Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]). Here, the plaintiff sought to modify the stipulation of settlement by motion rather than by plenary action. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

A challenge to a stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce must be made by plenary action, and not by motion (see Weissman v Weissman, 68 AD3d 981 [2009]; Reiter v Reiter, 39 AD3d 616 [2007]; Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]). Here, the plaintiff sought to modify the stipulation of settlement by motion rather than by plenary action. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.3d 737, 947 N.Y.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sudaka-karlsson-v-karlsson-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack