Opinion
February 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter Patsalos, J.).
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the provisions of the stipulation of settlement and the judgment of divorce concerning defendant's interest in plaintiff's pension benefits are consistent with each other. We also reject plaintiff's claim that under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c) and as a matter of public policy the parties could not enter into an agreement as to how postdivorce pension benefits could be divided (cf., Biddlecom v. Biddlecom, 113 A.D.2d 66). Furthermore, there is no indication that the agreement was not fair or reasonable and plaintiff has presented no evidence of fraud, mistake or duress entitling him to reformation of the agreement. Plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the negotiation of both the stipulation and the judgment and, as Supreme Court noted, no affidavit by plaintiff's former counsel was presented to support the motion to conform the judgment. Under these circumstances, the court's denial of plaintiff's motion should be upheld (see, supra).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.