From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mauro v. Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1989
148 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 27, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision which denied the defendant's motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement and the order entered thereon; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant husband sought to vacate a stipulation of settlement and the order entered thereon on the ground that the plaintiff wife was guilty of fraud in the procurement of the settlement. According to the husband's motion papers, he agreed to settle the parties' financial disputes by accepting, inter alia, the balance which remained in one particular bank account. Unbeknownst to the husband, however, the wife had closed this account several months prior to the execution of the stipulation. Although the wife alleged that she had forgotten, at the time she entered into the stipulation, that she had withdrawn the funds and closed the account upon which the stipulation was primarily based, we find that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the wife's conduct constituted an act of fraud sufficient to set aside the stipulation of settlement and the order entered thereon (see, Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403).

The wife's motion to vacate the amended judgment of divorce on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and excusable default was, however, properly denied. The wife failed to demonstrate that the 1984 bank balances could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence (cf., Matter of Gerzack v. Gerzack, 87 A.D.2d 612). Moreover, the wife's alleged inability to retain legal counsel is insufficient to excuse what was otherwise a willful default (see, Levine v. Berlin, 46 A.D.2d 902).

We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mauro v. Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1989
148 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Mauro v. Mauro

Case Details

Full title:MARIE MAURO, Appellant-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS P. MAURO…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Sperbeck v. Sperbeck

We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's belated motion. Moreover,…

Peroni v. Peroni

To the extent that he contends that the side effects of certain medications impaired his judgment and…