Opinion
2011-10-18
Ionica LAZAR, respondent,v.Ovidiu LAZAR, appellant.
Patrick Christopher, Howard Beach, N.Y., for appellant.John A. Gemelli, Esq., P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Emily C. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated May 14, 2010, which denied his motion, inter alia, to stay the signing of the parties' judgment of divorce on the ground that the parties' written stipulation of settlement dated November 13, 2009, should be vacated or modified.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties in this case entered into a comprehensive written stipulation of settlement ( see CPLR 2104; Nordgren v. Nordgren, 264 A.D.2d 828, 829, 695 N.Y.S.2d 588). Where, as here, the stipulation is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument ( see Micciche v. Micciche, 62 A.D.3d 673, 879 N.Y.S.2d 502). A stipulation which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability ( see Rubin v. Rubin, 33 A.D.3d 983, 984, 823 N.Y.S.2d 218).
Here, the defendant's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions that the stipulation was the result of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability were inadequate to render the stipulation unenforceable ( id. at 984, 823 N.Y.S.2d 218). Moreover, the stipulation was not so manifestly unfair on its face as to be unconscionable, given the “meaningful benefits” received by the defendant ( Etzion v. Etzion, 62 A.D.3d 646, 654, 880 N.Y.S.2d 79).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, inter alia, to stay the signing of the parties' judgment of divorce on the ground that *518 the stipulation should be vacated or modified.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.