Opinion
April 21, 1997
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated January 29, 1996, as denied her motion to vacate a stipulation which provided for unsupervised visitation by the plaintiff husband with the parties' children which was entered into in open court on December 13, 1995.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly set aside (see, Lazich v. Lazich, 233 A.D.2d 424; Doppelt v. Doppelt, 215 A.D.2d 715; Matter of Fialkowski v Gilroy, 200 A.D.2d 668, 670; see also, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321; Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, 893; Harrington v. Harrington, 103 A.D.2d 356, 359). Although the best interests of the child or children are always paramount (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-94; see also, Glauber v. Glauber, 192 A.D.2d 94, 97), stipulations concerning visitation are to be enforced in the absence of fraud, duress, mistake, or overreaching (see, Lazich v. Lazich, supra, citing Matter of Fialkowski v. Gilroy, supra; Mangels v. Mangels, 197 A.D.2d 505; Matter of Ellman v. Nastasi, 188 A.D.2d 465).
Here, the defendant wife has failed to demonstrate the existence of any ground to vacate the parties' stipulation concerning unsupervised visitation. The record supports the trial court's finding that the defendant wife, who was represented by counsel, voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation, notwithstanding her expressed reservations. Further, the defendant wife has not alleged any specific facts that constitute legal duress (see, e.g., Sontag v. Sontag, supra, 114 A.D.2d, at 893). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court that the stipulation was fair and reasonable and was not in contravention of what was in the best interests of the children.
The defendant wife's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.