From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Woods v. Velez-Shanahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 29, 2003
308 A.D.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-01067

Submitted September 2, 2003.

September 29, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated October 4, 2002, which sustained the respondent mother's objections and vacated an order of the same court (Braxton, H.E.), dated May 16, 2002, entered upon consent, and awarded the respondent mother child support in the amount of $194 per week and arrears retroactive to October 2, 2001.

Larkin, Axelrod, Trachte Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (Azra J. Khan of counsel), for appellant.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order dated October 4, 2002, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the mother's objections are denied, and the order dated May 16, 2002, is reinstated.

"[S]tipulations of settlement, especially those whose terms are placed upon the record in open court, are met with judicial favor. Absent a showing of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, the stipulation should not be disturbed by the court" ( Wieners v. Wieners, 239 A.D.2d 493, 494; see Lafferty v. Lafferty, 256 A.D.2d 445).

A party to a stipulation of settlement may opt out of the provisions of the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter the CSSA) provided that the decision to do so is knowingly made ( see Mauriello v. Mauriello, 301 A.D.2d 505). In the presence of the Hearing Examiner, the respondent mother clearly consented to the terms of the stipulation. The parties knowingly agreed to opt out of the CSSA and the order, dated May 16, 2002, entered upon consent, specified the amount that the obligation would have been under the standards and the reason that the stipulation did not provide for payment of that amount ( see Mauriello v. Mauriello, supra; Family Court Act § 413[h]). Accordingly, we reinstate the order dated May 16, 2002.

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Woods v. Velez-Shanahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 29, 2003
308 A.D.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Woods v. Velez-Shanahan

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS G. WOODS, appellant, v. DENISE E. VELEZ-SHANAHAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 29, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 517

Citing Cases

Stevenson v. Blanco

“ ‘[S]tipulations of settlement, especially those whose terms are placed upon the record in open court, are…

Hymowitz v. Hymowitz

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement, especially those whose terms are placed upon the record…