Turk v. Turk
Decision Date | 26 October 2000 |
Citation | 714 N.Y.S.2d 566,276 A.D.2d 953 |
Parties | JOANN TURK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ABRAHAM A. TURK, Also Known as BUCKY TURK, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The 1976 marriage of the parties was terminated in 1998 when plaintiff was granted a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Incorporated into the judgment of divorce was a stipulation of settlement resolving all issues surrounding equitable distribution. As a result of the settlement agreement, defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff $25,000 within seven days of the granting of the divorce decree, $375,000 in the form of a qualified domestic relations order, $400,000 in cash payable to plaintiff and her attorneys, and $50,000 in annual lifetime maintenance, taxable to plaintiff. The parties further agreed that plaintiff would vacate the marital residence, deed to defendant her interest in a Florida condominium and pay her own medical insurance beginning on January 1, 1999. Following entry of the judgment of divorce, defendant sought an order seeking to compel plaintiff to affirm the stipulation of settlement resolving the divorce proceeding since plaintiff threatened to seek vacatur of the stipulation of settlement. Plaintiff cross-moved to vacate those provisions of the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce which resolved the economic issues between the parties, claiming first that it was unconscionable, and second, that she was not capable of consenting thereto in view of her existing medical condition. As a collateral matter, plaintiff's attorney petitioned for a charging lien against plaintiff's share of equitable distribution in the sum of $400,000, as and for agreed counsel fees. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross motion rendering defendant's motion academic.[*]
Plaintiff now appeals from the denial of her cross motion seeking vacatur of the economic provisions of the judgment and stipulation of settlement.
We affirm. An agreement resolving issues of equitable distribution may be set aside as unconscionable if it manifests unfairness suggesting that the distribution of assets is "`such as no [person] in his [or her] senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair [person] would accept on the other' (Hume v United States, 132 US 406, 411), the inequality being `so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense' (Mandel v Liebman, 303 NY 88, 94)" (Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71 [internal quotations omitted]). Further, it is well settled that stipulations of settlement made in open court by parties represented by counsel after engaging in extensive negotiation with full knowledge of the assets to be distributed will not lightly be set aside (see, Cantamessa v Cantamessa, 170 AD2d 792).
Here, our review of the record fails to reveal any significant indicia of unconscionability. On the contrary, the record establishes that plaintiff's attorneys conducted extensive pretrial discovery in an unsuccessful effort to substantiate plaintiff's claims with respect to the marital assets and the standard of living to which she asserted she had become accustomed during the years of the marriage. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. Murphy
...to set aside an otherwise valid agreement ( see Fox v. Merriman, 307 A.D.2d 685, 686-687, 763 N.Y.S.2d 377 [2003];Turk v. Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953, 955, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 [2000]; Robison v. Borelli, 239 A.D.2d at 657, 657 N.Y.S.2d 783; Vermilyea v. Vermilyea, 224 A.D.2d 759, 761, 636 N.Y.S.2d 95......
-
Zurenda v. Zurenda
...that he or she lacks “the requisite mental capacity to understand and accept the proposed terms of settlement” ( Turk v. Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953, 955, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 [2000]; see Sears v. First Pioneer Farm Credit, ACA, 46 A.D.3d at 1284–1285, 850 N.Y.S.2d 219). No medical or psychiatric opin......
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...after the fact, believes that the agreement was improvident in some respect or that it constituted a bad bargain" ( Turk v. Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953, 955, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 ; see Brennan–Duffy v. Duffy, 22 A.D.3d 699, 700, 804 N.Y.S.2d 399 ). Here, the defendant's contention that the plaintiff f......
-
Szemansco v. Szemansco
...stipulation to divide them equally, we are unpersuaded. Notably, plaintiff has not moved to vacate the stipulation (compare, Turk v Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953; Uhl v Uhl, 274 A.D.2d 915) nor even alleged that any legally cognizable ground to do so exists. Under these circumstances, plaintiff is b......
-
Chapter 24 UNCONSCIONABILITY: PROCEDURAL UNCONSCIONABILITY AND SUBSTANTIVE UNCONSCIONABILITY
...the sum of $3,500 per month as maintenance for 10 years, we find . . . (that) the agreement cannot be considered unconscionable.[3640] 276 A.D.2d 953, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 (3d Dep't 2000).[3641] Id. at 954.[3642] 167 A.D.3d 489, 89 N.Y.S.3d 17 (1st Dep't 2018).[3643] Citing Klauer v. Abeliovich......
-
Chapter 37 RATIFICATION
...Mandel v. Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88 (1951) (it is not for the court to decide whether defendant made a good or bad bargain); Turk v. Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 (3d Dep't 2000); Kaffenberger v. Kaffenberger, 228 A.D.2d 743, 643 N.Y.S.2d 740 (3d Dep't 1996); Vermilyea v. Vermilyea, 224......
-
Chapter 28 RESCISSION
...Smith v. Smith, 129 A.D.2d 575, 514 N.Y.S.2d 73 (2d Dep't 1987); Beutel v. Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957, 449 N.Y.S.2d 180 (1982); Turk v. Turk, 276 A.D.2d 953, 714 N.Y.S.2d 566 (3d Dep't 2000); cf. Terio v. Terio, 150 A.D.2d 675, 541 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2d Dep't 1989) (The plaintiff suffered from mental......