Opinion
December 21, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred by setting aside the oral stipulation entered into by the parties in open court and simultaneously ratified by written stipulation. In our view, this stipulation was a valid "opting out" agreement (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; cf., Hanford v. Hanford, 91 A.D.2d 829). Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not set aside absent good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract (see, Yuda v. Yuda, 143 A.D.2d 657, 658; Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, lv. dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 554) or a showing that the agreement is manifestly unfair to one spouse because of the other's overreaching (Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-73). The mere fact that the terms of the agreement favor one party, without more, does not provide a sufficient basis for setting aside a stipulation (see, McFarland v. McFarland, 70 N.Y.2d 916, 918). In our view, the stipulation entered into by the parties here was not the product of the husband's overreaching and is not manifestly unfair to the wife. Moreover, the wife was represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiation of the agreement.
We, therefore, reverse the judgment except to the extent that it grants a divorce to plaintiff, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment which incorporates the stipulation of January 19, 1988.