Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sandra BAILEY, respondent, v. Stephen ASSAM, appellant.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 20, 1996, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated September 23, 1998, as granted the motion of the plaintiff former wife to be appointed the receiver of certain real property for the purpose of transferring to her the defendant's interest therein, and denied his cross motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court on June 16, 1997.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Following entry of a judgment of divorce, the parties entered into a stipulation in open court to resolve issues of child support, maintenance, and equitable distribution. As part of the so-ordered stipulation the defendant agreed to transfer to the plaintiff his interest in the former marital premises.
Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the so-ordered stipulation did not terminate the action (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v. Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51, 421 N.Y.S.2d 556, 396 N.E.2d 1029). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the defendant could only challenge the stipulation by commencing a plenary action (see, Arguelles v. Arguelles, 251 A.D.2d 611, 675 N.Y.S.2d 551; Zeppelin v. Zeppelin, 245 A.D.2d 504, 666 N.Y.S.2d 486). Nevertheless, the defendant's cross motion to vacate the stipulation was properly denied because he failed to adduce medical evidence to support his claim of mental incapacity, or demonstrate that the stipulation was unconscionable (see, Arguelles v. Arguelles, supra; Lavelle v. Lavelle, 187 A.D.2d 912, 590 N.Y.S.2d 557). The plaintiff was entitled to enforcement of the stipulation because the defendant failed to controvert her evidence that he had not complied with the stipulation (see, Natole v. Natole, 256 A.D.2d 558, 682 N.Y.S.2d 864). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to be appointed the receiver for the purpose of transferring the defendant's interest in the marital residence to her.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 07, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)