From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 5, 1988
142 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

July 5, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In view of the fact that the defendant husband, who was at all times represented by counsel, consented after judicial inquiry to the subject stipulation in open court, his conclusory allegations of unfairness or unconscionability are without evidentiary value (see, McDougall v. McDougall, 129 A.D.2d 685; Jensen v. Jensen, 110 A.D.2d 679).

The record reveals, contrary to the defendant's claims, that the provisions of the stipulation were not "manifestly unfair" and there was no overreaching present in its inception. The new appraisal as to the value of the marital residence does not support a claim of mutual mistake, nor is the defendant's claimed misunderstanding of the terms sufficient to set aside the parties' agreement given the binding nature of the stipulation (see, Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 123 A.D.2d 64; Zioncheck v Zioncheck, 99 A.D.2d 563).

"Judicial review is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions" (see, Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-72). The defendant's claim of hardship or alleged change of circumstances, even if supported by the evidence, which it is not, would not persuade this court to set aside the parties' agreement as to the property settlement. The stability and hence the effectiveness of property dispositions would be seriously undermined if they could be set aside after execution upon a finding that they became unfair after some time had elapsed.

Finally, it was not error to deny the defendant's application without an evidentiary hearing as no triable issues of fact were raised, the defendant's allegations being conclusory and belied by the record (see, McDougall v. McDougall, 129 A.D.2d 685, supra; Robinson v. Robinson, 111 A.D.2d 316, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 613, mot to vacate denied 66 N.Y.2d 855, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 647). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richardson v. Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 5, 1988
142 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Richardson v. Richardson

Case Details

Full title:LUGENIA RICHARDSON, Respondent, v. JAMES O. RICHARDSON, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 5, 1988

Citations

142 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Vermilyea v. Vermilyea

The pension evaluation report was available to both parties for more than two months prior to the…

Tal v. Tal

nd the wife's action for rescission of said agreements. "Generally, separation agreements which are regular…