From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heuer v. Heuer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 3, 1987
129 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 3, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Livingston County, Houston, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Livingston County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: During this divorce proceeding, the parties entered into a written stipulation that the value of plaintiff's interest in defendant's dental practice was $29,750. For the first time on this appeal, plaintiff questions the validity of the stipulation because it was unfair and because neither the stipulation nor the final judgment included a valuation of defendant's dental license (see, O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, which was decided after the stipulation, but before a granting of the judgment). No motion to reopen proof was made. Since the record fails to reveal any basis for setting aside the stipulation, it remains unimpeached (see, Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71; Preston v Preston,, 107 A.D.2d 799), and plaintiff's claims pertaining to the validity of the stipulation are not presently reviewable (see, Gibbons v City of Troy, 91 A.D.2d 707, 708; Matter of Van Wormer v Leversee, 87 A.D.2d 942).

We also observe that there is no factual basis in the record to support the award of child support and the trial court failed to set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision as to child support and the distribution of a Keogh plan and individual retirement account (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]; [7] [b]). Therefore, we remit this matter to Supreme Court for additional proof as to child support and for the court's elaboration of the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision as to child support and the distribution of a Keogh plan and individual retirement account (Patrizio v Patrizio, 96 A.D.2d 1149; Nielsen v Nielsen, 91 A.D.2d 1016). We have reviewed the remaining contentions of the parties and find them to lack merit.


Summaries of

Heuer v. Heuer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 3, 1987
129 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Heuer v. Heuer

Case Details

Full title:NANCY L. HEUER, Appellant-Respondent, v. GARY C. HEUER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 3, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Sue S. v. Courtney T.

We affirm. To the extent that the mother seeks to set aside the stipulation due to a unilateral mistake of…

Beman v. Kellogg

Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner's contention, Supreme Court properly determined following a hearing that…