Pinkham v. Pinkham

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: <P>Mercure, J.P.</P&gt
• Citation: Pinkham v. Pinkham, 309 AD2d 1139, 766 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
• Decision Date: 30 October 2003
• Parties: SUSAN J. PINKHAM, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ARTHUR A. PINKHAM, Respondent.

309 A.D.2d 1139

766 N.Y.S.2d 919

SUSAN J. PINKHAM, Appellant,

v.ARTHUR A. PINKHAM, Respondent.

Mercure, J.P.

Decided October 30, 2003.

Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Mercure, J.P.

In February 2002, the parties to this divorce action entered into a stipulation, in open court, regarding maintenance and the distribution of marital property. After consulting privately with her attorney, plaintiff stated on the record that she had ample opportunity to discuss the terms of the stipulation with her attorney, understood its terms and agreed to the stipulation voluntarily. Defendant then consented to a default divorce judgment and the parties signed an opting out agreement. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved by order to show cause to vacate the stipulation and judgment of divorce, alleging that she was not in control of her "mental faculties" when she entered into the stipulation due to her overwhelming fear of defendant. Supreme Court denied the motion and plaintiff appeals.

Stipulations of settlement made in open court are favored and will "not be lightly set aside particularly where, as here, counsel for both parties were present and the parties negotiated the terms of the agreement" (Morris v Morris, 205 AD2d 914, 915 [1994]; see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Carnicelli v Carnicelli, 300 AD2d 1093, 1093-1094 [2002]). Thus, a stipulation of settlement will be set aside only "`where it is manifestly unfair to one party because of the other's overreaching or where its terms are unconscionable or constitute fraud, collusion, mistake or accident'" (Batson v Batson, 277 AD2d 750, 751 [2000], quoting Barzin v Barzin, 158 AD2d 769, 770 [1990], lv dismissed 77 NY2d 834 [1991]; see Hallock v State of New York, su...