Opinion
September 21, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the former husband's unsubstantiated allegations that he did not read or understand the papers which he executed, and that he was served with an incomplete copy of the parties' judgment of divorce, are refuted by the documentary evidence in the record as well as by common sense and experience. Accordingly, the court properly determined that the former husband failed to sustain his heavy burden of demonstrating that the judgment of divorce was procured through the alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of the former wife and her former counsel ( see generally, Longa v. 17 Battery Place N. Assocs., 169 A.D.2d 520; Marine Midland Bank v. Hall, 74 A.D.2d 729; Wallace v. Wallace, 52 A.D.2d 945; Manufacturers Traders Trust Co. v. Commercial Door Hardware, 51 A.D.2d 362).
O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.