Wilson v. Wilson
Decision Date | 12 December 2006 |
Docket Number | 2006-02385.,2006-01148.,No. 7231/99.,2006-01244.,7231/99. |
Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 09457,35 A.D.3d 595,826 N.Y.S.2d 416 |
Parties | ADRIENNE WILSON, Respondent, v. STEPHEN J. WILSON, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appeals from the orders must be dismissed because any right of appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). In any event, with respect to the appeal from the order entered September 14, 2005, no appeal lies as of right from an order denying a motion that was not made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c]; Delloiaco v City of New York, 174 AD2d 705 [1991]). With regard to the order dated December 14, 2005, no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Schoenfeld v Shonfeld, 266 AD2d 449 [1999]). The issues raised on appeal from the order entered September 14, 2005 are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
On March 28, 2005 the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement before the Supreme Court. The defendant argues that this was merely "an agreement to agree" which, inter alia, had to be reduced to writing and executed before it could be deemed valid and enforceable. However, "an oral stipulation will be binding if it is spread upon the record in open court" (Luisi v Luisi, 244 AD2d 464 [1997]; see also Margolis v New York City Tr. Auth., 233 AD2d 483 [1996]; Gage v Jay Bee Photographers, 222 AD2d 648 [1995]; Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v Bankers Trust Co., 182 AD2d 592 [1992]). Here, when the transcript dated March 28, 2005 is read in its entirety, it is clear that what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and not simply an agreement to agree.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the stipulation was not rendered invalid because there was no subsequent written agreement (see e.g. Storette v Storette, 11 AD3d 365 [2004]; Friedman v Garey, 8 AD3d 129 [2004]; Harrington v Harrington, 103 AD2d 356 [1984]; cf. Giambattista v Giambattista, 89 AD2d 1057 [1982]). Furthermore, where an open court stipulation contains all of the material terms of an enforceable agreement, it will be enforced absent a showing of fraud, duress, or mistake sufficient to invalidate a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]). Since the stipulation contained all of the terms which were material to the settlement of this matrimonial action, and since there was no claim of fraud, duress, or mistake relating to the terms thereof, the Supreme Court properly enforced the stipulation and entered judgment thereon.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Lifson, J. :
In open court, the parties' attorneys enumerated a number of items upon which the parties ostensibly had arrived at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
STL Rest. Corp. v. Microcosmic, Inc.
...). Stipulations "spread upon the record in open court" are favored by the courts and will not be lightly cast aside (Wilson v. Wilson, 35 A.D.3d 595, 596, 826 N.Y.S.2d 416 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d ......
-
Nieborak v. W54-7 LLC
...is clear that what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and not simply an agreement to agree" ( Wilson v. Wilson, 35 A.D.3d 595, 596, 826 N.Y.S.2d 416 [2d Dept. 2006] ). "The fact that it is necessary for the parties to exchange general releases and execute a confidentiality a......
-
Castello v. Castello
...motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2] ; [c]; Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 56, 65, 970 N.Y.S.2d 260 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 35 A.D.3d 595, 595, 826 N.Y.S.2d 416 ), and we decline to grant leave to appeal from that order. In an amended order dated February 17, 2015, which granted......
-
Nieborak v. W54-7 LLC
... ... what was spread upon the record was an oral stipulation and ... not simply an agreement to agree" (Wilson v ... Wilson, 35 A.D.3d 595, 596 [2d Dept 2006]). "The ... fact that it is necessary for the parties to exchange general ... ...
-
Chapter 28 RESCISSION
...50 A.D.3d 875, 855 N.Y.S.2d 645 (2d Dep't 2008); Hannigan v. Hannigan, 50 A.D.3d 957, 857 N.Y.S.2d 201 (2d Dep't 2008); Wilson v. Wilson, 35 A.D.3d 595, 826 N.Y.S.2d 416 (2d Dep't 2006); Nash v. Yablon-Nash, 61 A.D.3d 832, 878 N.Y.S.2d 382 (2d Dep't 2009).[4380] Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143.[438......
-
Chapter 1 AGREEMENTS IN GENERAL: PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT DOCTRINE
...Refers to Judicial Proceedings."[912] Taormina v. Taormina, 85 A.D.3d 766, 766924 N.Y.S.2d 825 (2d Dep't 2011) (citations omitted).[913] 35 A.D.3d 595, 826 N.Y.S.2d 416 (2d Dep't 2006); Rickles v. Rickles, 88 A.D.3d 780, 930 N.Y.S.2d 909 (2d Dep't 2011).[914] 37 A.D.3d 446, 829 N.Y.S.2d 601......