Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Gilbert v. Gilbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 19, 2002

291 A.D.2d 479; 738 N.Y.S.2d 221; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Pippis v. Pippis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Santini v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Santini v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Unger v. Coyle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Libert v. Libert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Kalra v. Kalra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Tuccillo v. Tuccillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Cruciata v. Cruciata (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Kavanagh v. Kavanagh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to rescind a stipula*480tion of settlement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), dated September 18, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside (see, Quality Ceramic Tile & Marble Co. v Cherry Val. Ltd. Partnership, 259 AD2d 607; Golfinopoulos v Golfinopoulos, 144 AD2d 537, 538). However, where a stipulation of settlement is manifestly unfair and one-sided due to a spouse’s overreaching, it can be rescinded (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72-73). Moreover, while evidence that one spouse was not represented by an attorney is insufficient, alone, to find overreaching, it is a significant factor in determining whether the parties entered into the stipulation freely and fairly (see, Jaus v Jaus, 168 AD2d 487, 488). The record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the stipulation of settlement was unconscionable and the product of the defendant’s overreaching, and that it should, therefore, be rescinded (see, Vandenburgh v Vandenburgh, 194 AD2d 957, 958). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.