Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation spread on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress ( see, Wilutis v. Wilutis, 184 A.D.2d 639). In order to prove legal duress, a party must adduce evidence that a wrongful threat precluded the exercise of the party's free will ( Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, 894). Generalized contentions that a party felt pressured by the court are insufficient (Sontag v. Sontag, supra), and even a stipulation which was improvident will not be set aside unless it is manifestly unfair or unconscionable (see, Wilutis v. Wilutis, supra). In the instant matter, the husband has wholly failed to make the requisite showings of duress, and thus he has not demonstrated that the court erred in denying his motion. Moreover, in light of the fact that the husband received sole title to the former marital residence in exchange for, among other things, his durationally-limited payments, it cannot be said that the stipulation was so one-sided as to be manifestly unfair.
The husband's remaining contentions are devoid of merit ( see, e.g., Kalra v. Kalra, 170 A.D.2d 579). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and McGinity, JJ., concur.