From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1987
129 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 6, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to establish any ground for rescinding the stipulation settling her prior action for a separation, spread on the record on June 12, 1979. The fact that the defendant, who was represented by counsel throughout, may have been under an emotional strain in 1979 and may have had a different understanding as to whether the alimony provisions of the surviving stipulation could later be modified are insufficient to warrant the relief she seeks (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957; Winant v Winant, 83 A.D.2d 849, affd 55 N.Y.2d 870). Neither the stipulation on its face nor the circumstances surrounding its making suggest that it was arrived at other than fairly (Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63). Furthermore, the defendant received the benefits of the stipulation for a number of years prior to interposing a challenge to it (cf., Culp v Culp, 117 A.D.2d 700; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 A.D.2d 930).

Although the trial court erroneously utilized the standards governing agreements and stipulations (see, Harrington v Harrington, 103 A.D.2d 356) made after the effective date of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (L 1980, ch 281, § 9; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; see, Frys v Frys, 120 A.D.2d 975; De Jose v De Jose, 104 A.D.2d 629, affd 66 N.Y.2d 804), it nonetheless properly denied the defendant's request for maintenance in excess of the amount fixed by the parties for the defendant's support and incorporated in the judgment of separation. The defendant failed to establish at trial that she was actually unable to support herself on that amount and that she was in actual danger of becoming a public charge (McMains v McMains, 15 N.Y.2d 283). Finally, the amount awarded by the trial court for support of each of the parties' minor children, which was double the amount originally fixed by the parties (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132) is adequate. Rubin, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1987
129 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Smith v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP SMITH, Respondent, v. DESPINA SMITH, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 6, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Nielsen v. Nielsen

Moreover, the plaintiff's remaining allegations of wrongdoing are conclusory and fail to support her…

Burton v. Burton

The defendant has failed to establish any basis for vacatur of the oral stipulation entered into in open…