Lamberson v. Lamberson

Citation208 A.D.2d 601,618 N.Y.S.2d 236
PartiesRita LAMBERSON, Respondent, v. Dane LAMBERSON, Appellant.
Decision Date11 October 1994
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

England & England, P.C., Centereach (Catherine T. England, of counsel), for appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered February 3, 1983, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered November 16, 1992, which denied his motion to vacate his obligation to pay maintenance to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant former husband failed to demonstrate that the continuation of his stipulated maintenance obligation has caused him to suffer "extreme hardship" (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b]. Therefore, the court correctly denied his motion to eliminate his obligation (Praeger v. Praeger, 162 A.D.2d 671, 557 N.Y.S.2d 394; Gerringer v. Gerringer, 152 A.D.2d 652, 543 N.Y.S.2d 734; Koch v. Koch, 134 A.D.2d 574, 521 N.Y.S.2d 474). Rather, since the parties' agreement, including the former husband's obligation to pay the former wife $100 per week for life, is unambiguous and was lawful when made, there being no claim of overreaching or unconscionability (see, Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849; Ferro v. Bologna, 31 N.Y.2d 30, 334 N.Y.S.2d 856, 286 N.E.2d 244), the stipulation shall be enforced.

We have reviewed the former husband's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

MILLER, J.P., and JOY, ALTMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Frasca v. Frasca
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 27, 1995
    ...and child support obligations contained in a stipulation into which the parties had entered in open court (Lamberson v. Lamberson, 208 A.D.2d 601, 618 N.Y.S.2d 236). The record reveals that the plaintiff's alleged economic hardship is premised upon the fact that he has been convicted of a c......
  • Krinsky v. Krinsky
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 11, 1994
  • Krinsky v. Krinsky
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 11, 1994

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT