Vasileva v. Christy
| Decision Date | 23 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2018–10731,Index No. 988/13 |
| Parties | Tsveta VASILEVA, appellant, v. Anthony N. CHRISTY, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
195 A.D.3d 980
151 N.Y.S.3d 111
Tsveta VASILEVA, appellant,
v.
Anthony N. CHRISTY, respondent.
2018–10731
Index No. 988/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—April 13, 2021
June 23, 2021
A.A. Castro C.L.A.N., PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Angel A. Castro III of counsel), for appellant.
Sager Gellerman Eisner, LLP, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Alyssa Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margaret P. McGowan, J.), entered June 27, 2018. The judgment of divorce, upon an order of the same court dated January 11, 2018, inter alia, granting that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for an award of counsel fees and awarding the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $5,000, and upon findings of fact and conclusions of law dated May 24, 2018, insofar as appealed from, incorporated, but did not merge, the provisions of an oral stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 16, 2017, and thereupon, among other things, awarded the plaintiff the sum of only
$2,050 per month in basic child support and directed the parties to pay pro rata shares of statutory add-on expenses, including unreimbursed medical expenses, educational expenses, and any extra curricular activity expenses incurred on behalf of the child, as well as daycare expenses to enable the custodial parent to work.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provisions thereof incorporating, but not merging, the provisions of the oral stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 16, 2017, insofar as they concern basic child support and statutory add-on expenses, including unreimbursed medical expenses, educational expenses, and any extra curricular activity expenses incurred on behalf of the child, as well as daycare expenses to enable the custodial parent to work, (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of only $2,050 per month in basic child support, (3) by deleting the provision thereof directing the parties to pay pro rata shares of all statutory add-on expenses, including unreimbursed medical expenses, educational expenses, and any extra curricular activity expenses incurred on behalf of the child, as well as daycare expenses to enable the custodial parent to work, and (4) by deleting the provision thereof adjudging the stipulation of settlement to be in compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 240(1–b)(h), for the reasons set forth in the
findings of fact and conclusion of law; as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination, in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act, of the parties’ child support obligations, including the parties’ income and their respective pro rata shares of statutory add-on expenses, including unreimbursed medical expenses, educational expenses, and any extra curricular activity expenses incurred on behalf of the child, as well as daycare expenses to enable the custodial parent to work, and thereafter for the entry of an amended judgment of divorce, that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for an award of attorney's fees is denied, and the order dated January 11, 2018, is modified accordingly; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the interim, the defendant shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ranger
...act compelled his or her performance of an act which he or she had the legal right to abstain from performing" (Vasileva v Christy, 195 A.D.3d 980, 982 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[T]he threat must be such as to deprive the party of the exercise of free will" (Polito v Polito, 121......
-
Mashieh v. Mashieh
...that he felt pressured to execute the stipulation is insufficient to support vacatur of the stipulation (see Vasileva v. Christy, 195 A.D.3d 980, 982, 151 N.Y.S.3d 111 ).Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined that the marital residence, a cooperative apartment, was marital prop......
-
Mashieh v. Mashieh
...that he felt pressured to execute the stipulation is insufficient to support vacatur of the stipulation (see Vasileva v Christy, 195 A.D.3d 980, 982). Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined that the marital residence, a cooperative apartment, was marital property. The defendant......
-
Mashieh v. Mashieh
...that he felt pressured to execute the stipulation is insufficient to support vacatur of the stipulation (see Vasileva v Christy, 195 A.D.3d 980, 982). Additionally, the Supreme Court properly determined that the marital residence, a cooperative apartment, was marital property. The defendant......