Young v. Young
| Citation | 36 N.Y.S.3d 507,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05809,142 A.D.3d 612 |
| Parties | Lauren YOUNG, respondent, v. Patrick YOUNG, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 17 August 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
142 A.D.3d 612
36 N.Y.S.3d 507
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05809
Lauren YOUNG, respondent,
v.
Patrick YOUNG, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 17, 2016.
Anne Louise DePalo, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Peter Fuller De Lizzo, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 11, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to set aside a stipulation of settlement.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the child support provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement for failure to comply with the Child Support Standards Act and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County for a determination of the defendant's child support obligations in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act and the defendant's obligation to pay college tuition and other expenses for the parties' youngest child.
The plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief in 2009 after more than 30 years of marriage. On March 5, 2013, the parties entered into a written stipulation of settlement resolving, among things, equitable distribution of the parties' assets and payment of child support for the parties' youngest child. The stipulation of settlement provides, in Article XVIII, that if a provision of the stipulation of settlement is found to be invalid and unenforceable, the other provisions remain valid and enforceable.
Prior to entry of a judgment of divorce, the defendant moved, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of settlement on the grounds that it was unconscionable and the result of fraud, duress, and overreaching, or, in the alternative, to vacate the provision
of the stipulation of settlement requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummins v. Lune
...those obligations are inextricably intertwined such that the entire support provision must be vacated (see Young v. Young, 142 A.D.3d 612, 613, 36 N.Y.S.3d 507 [2016] ; cf. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 142 A.D.3d 187, 192, 36 N.Y.S.3d 28 [2016] ; compare Bushlow v. Bushlow, 89 A.D.3d 663, 664, 9......
- Haik v. Haik
-
Hardman v. Coleman
...the judgment of divorce, as the remaining provisions not pertaining to child support may be independently enforced (see Young v. Young, 142 A.D.3d 612, 613, 36 N.Y.S.3d 507 [2016] ; Cimons v. Cimons, 53 A.D.3d 125, 129, 861 N.Y.S.2d 88 [2008] ; compare David v. Cruz, 103 A.D.3d 494, 495, 96......
-
Vasileva v. Christy
...were closely intertwined with the child support provisions (see Cohen v. Cohen, 187 A.D.3d 707, 130 N.Y.S.3d 352 ; Young v. Young, 142 A.D.3d 612, 613, 36 N.Y.S.3d 507 ; Bushlow v. Bushlow, 89 A.D.3d at 664, 932 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; Baranek v. Baranek, 54 A.D.3d at 791, 864 N.Y.S.2d 94 ; Cimons v......