Weissman v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weissman v. Weissman

68 A.D.3d 981, 889 N.Y.2d 851

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 981 (Weissman v. Weissman) 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

Weissman v. Weissman, 68 A.D.3d 981, 889 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[982]*982The parties’ stipulation of settlement was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce; as such, it is an independent contract which may be challenged only by way of a plenary action (see Reiter v Reiter, 39 AD3d 616 [2007]; Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467 [2000]; Dombrowski v Dombrowski, 239 AD2d 460 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the stipulation on that basis alone.

Those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to direct the defendant to transfer the title to the marital residence to her and for permission to sell the residence, were unnecessary. The deed had already been provided to the plaintiff, and permission to sell is not required pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.R, Santucci, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

[982]*982The parties’ stipulation of settlement was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce; as such, it is an independent contract which may be challenged only by way of a plenary action (see Reiter v Reiter, 39 AD3d 616 [2007]; Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467 [2000]; Dombrowski v Dombrowski, 239 AD2d 460 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the stipulation on that basis alone.

Those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to direct the defendant to transfer the title to the marital residence to her and for permission to sell the residence, were unnecessary. The deed had already been provided to the plaintiff, and permission to sell is not required pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.R, Santucci, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 981, 889 N.Y.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weissman-v-weissman-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack