Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.).
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
After the petitioner's DNA evidence was deemed inadmissible by the court, the parties, in open court, entered into an oral stipulation of settlement (hereinafter the agreement) pursuant to Family Court Act § 516. Under the terms of the agreement there would be no finding or admission of paternity. Nevertheless the respondent agreed to pay the petitioner $125 per week for the support of the child which would be in full satisfaction of any claim the petitioner had for the support and education of the child.
Before a written agreement was executed, the petitioner moved to vacate the agreement. The court denied the motion in an order dated May 17, 1993. Thereafter, on August 3, 1993, a formal order was issued approving the agreement upon the court's finding that adequate provisions had been made for the support of the child. The agreement was further approved by the Orange County Department of Social Services.
On appeal, the petitioner, appearing pro se, essentially argues that the agreement should be set aside as unconscionable as it does not provide adequate support for the child in the future.
Stipulations of settlement made in open in court are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside (see, Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319; Burkart v. Burkart, 182 A.D.2d 798). Since the petitioner has failed to show that there was any fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress in reaching the parties' agreement, we refuse to set it aside (see, Bossom v. Bossom, 141 A.D.2d 794; Schieck v. Schieck, 138 A.D.2d 691). In addition, absent nonperformance, the agreement precludes the petitioner and child from commencing subsequent proceedings seeking additional support for the child (see, Family Ct Act § 516 [c]; Matter of ABC v XYZ, 50 Misc.2d 792).
The child may pursue her substantial other rights (see, Matter of ABC v. XYZ, supra; EPTL 4-1.2 [a] [2]) if so advised. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.