DiLavore v. DiLavore

1 Citing case

  1. Nash v. Nash

    269 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    We affirm. A court should construe a stipulation made in open court in accordance with the intent of the parties and the purpose of the stipulation by examining the record as a whole (see, McWade v. McWade, 253 A.D.2d 798; DiLavore v. DiLavore, 237 A.D.2d 322; Sklerov v. Sklerov, 231 A.D.2d 622; Carnicelli v. Carnicelli, 205 A.D.2d 726). We agree with the Supreme Court that the April 2, 1998, stipulation "had nothing to do with [the] division of the IRA proceeds". Although the stipulation was described by the parties as having "superseded" all prior agreements, orders, and judgments, we construe this to mean that all prior judgments, orders and agreements were superseded only to the extent that they might be inconsistent with the stipulation.