From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pizzuto v. Pizzuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 4, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sacks, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the appeal from subdivision (g) of the third decretal paragraph of the judgment is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, the seventh and ninth decretal paragraphs and subdivisions (c), (j) and (l) of the eleventh decretal paragraph are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for correction of the vacated portions of the judgment so that they shall accurately reflect the provisions of the May 11, 1988, stipulation; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The preferred remedy when a party alleges that a judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation is by motion in the trial court for resettlement (CPLR 5019 [a]; Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N.Y. 323, 327) or vacatur (CPLR 5015) of the judgment, rather than by appeal (see, Leonard v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co., 84 N.Y. 48, 55-56; Stormville Mountain Homes v Zurhorst, 35 A.D.2d 562; cf., Hanlon v. Thonsen, 146 A.D.2d 743; Blaustein v. Blaustein, 145 A.D.2d 591; Spinello v. Spinello, 129 A.D.2d 694). However, we have examined the stipulation and judgment and find that in certain respects the latter does not conform to the former. We vacate the provisions of the judgment which, as the parties allege, vary from the stipulation of settlement, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court to make the judgment conform to the stipulation. With regard to subdivision (g) of the third decretal paragraph regarding the defendant's visitation with the parties' daughter, we note that the dispute is academic because the daughter has reached the age of majority (see, Domestic Relations Law § 2; Leff v. Leff, 144 A.D.2d 544, 546; see also, Anastasia v. Anastasia, 100 A.D.2d 740; Adamec v Adamec, 81 A.D.2d 600; Toppel v. Toppel, 67 A.D.2d 628; Silverman v. Silverman, 50 A.D.2d 824). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pizzuto v. Pizzuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Pizzuto v. Pizzuto

Case Details

Full title:SONIA PIZZUTO, Respondent, v. DONALD PIZZUTO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 390

Citing Cases

Wieners v. Wieners

The stipulation does not support a finding that the parties intended such a provision to be included in the…

Simonson-Carlson v. Carlson

The oral stipulation of the parties is ambiguous with respect to the issues of transportation for visitation…