Hunt v. Hunt
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: There is no ground for setting aside the judgment of divorce and the oral stipulation of settlement on which it was based. "[Stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where, as here, the terms are read
Here, the stipulation provided, among other things, that the parties would have joint custody; plaintiff would have primary physical custody; defendant would have generous visitation; defendant would pay child support; and, plaintiff would have exclusive possession of the marital residence (the only significant marital asset) until the children were emancipated, at which time it would be sold and the proceeds equitably distributed. Defendant may not have negotiated the best terms for himself, but it cannot be said that " ' "no [person] in his [or her] senses and not under delusion would make the [agreement] on the one hand, and * * * no honest and fair [person] would accept [it] on the other” ’ (Hume v United States, 132 US 406, 411)” (Christian v Christian, supra, at 71; Weinstock v Weinstock, 167 AD2d 394, 395, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 874; see, Barzin v Barzin, supra, at 770). Defendant’s allegations of unconscionability and unfairness are not substantiated by proof sufficient to justify setting aside the parties’ agreement.
We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Set Aside Divorce Decree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.