Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk
| Decision Date | 14 April 2003 |
| Citation | 757 N.Y.S.2d 479,304 A.D.2d 625 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | KRYSTYNA LUKASZUK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>KRZYSZTOF LUKASZUK, Appellant. |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well-settled that open-court stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, and will not be lightly set aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; Jablonski v Jablonski, 275 AD2d 692, 693 [2000]; Natole v Natole, 256 AD2d 558 [1998]). Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation (see Hallock v State of New York, supra; Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63 [1977]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150 [1971]; Jablonski v Jablonski, supra at 693). The defendant failed to establish that at the time of the stipulation of settlement he was suffering from a mental illness or defect which rendered him incapable of comprehending the nature of the transaction or making a rational judgment concerning the transaction, or that by reason of mental illness he was unable to control his conduct (see Ortelere v Teachers' Retirement Bd. of City of N.Y., 25 NY2d 196, 202-205 [1969]; Matter of Lee, 294 AD2d 366 [2002]; Gala v Magarinos, 245 AD2d 336 [1997]; Matter of Waldron, 240 AD2d 507 [1997]; Smith v Comas, 173 AD2d 535 [1991]). Furthermore, the defendant's conclusory allegations of duress and coercion are belied by the transcript of the stipulation of settlement (see Kane Constr. v Byrd, 284 AD2d 509 [2001]; Lefkowitz v Lefkowitz, 276 AD2d 598 [2000]; Sarai v Sarai, 267 AD2d 295 [1999]; Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horrell v. Horrell
...the transaction, or that by reason of mental illness [the party] was unable to control [his or her] conduct" ( Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk, 304 A.D.2d 625, 625, 757 N.Y.S.2d 479; see generally Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Bd. of City of N.Y., 25 N.Y.2d 196, 202-205, 303 N.Y.S.2d 362, 250 N.E.2......
-
Tavolacci v. Tavolacci
...also Taormina v. Taormina, 85 A.D.3d 766, 924 N.Y.S.2d 825;Tarone v. Tarone, 25 A.D.3d 779, 780, 809 N.Y.S.2d 150;Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk, 304 A.D.2d 625, 757 N.Y.S.2d 479;Jablonski v. Jablonski, 275 A.D.2d 692, 693, 713 N.Y.S.2d 184). Where a party unequivocally, knowingly, and voluntarily ag......
-
Taormina v. Taormina
...overreaching, mistake, duress, or unconscionability” ( Tarone v. Tarone, 25 A.D.3d 779, 780, 809 N.Y.S.2d 150; see Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk, 304 A.D.2d 625, 757 N.Y.S.2d 479; Jablonski v. Jablonski, 275 A.D.2d 692, 693, 713 N.Y.S.2d 184). Where a party unequivocally, knowingly, and voluntarily ......
-
Rogers v. Malik
...(see Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Bd. of City of N.Y., 25 N.Y.2d 196, 202–205, 303 N.Y.S.2d 362, 250 N.E.2d 460 ; Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk, 304 A.D.2d 625, 757 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; see also Blatt v. Manhattan Med. Group, 131 A.D.2d 48, 53, 519 N.Y.S.2d 973 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court proper......