Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson
97 A.D.3d 737, 947 N.Y.2d 906
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases
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
Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson, 97 A.D.3d 737, 947 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
97 A.D.3d 737 (Sudaka-Karlsson v. Karlsson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
O'Malley v. O'Malley
2024 NY Slip Op 04077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Sabau v. Sabau
2023 NY Slip Op 06765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)