| Balkin v Balkin |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06814 [43 AD3d 967] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ronald A. Balkin, Appellant, v Karen Balkin, Respondent.(And a Related Action.) |
—[*1] Barrocas & Rieger, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Sol Barrocas, Barry J. Fisher, and Kieth I.Rieger of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), datedOctober 5, 2005, as, upon the parties' oral stipulation of settlement, and upon granting the wife'smotion to withdraw the sum of $2.5 million from a certain investment account as an advanceagainst her share of equitable distribution to the extent of permitting her to withdraw the sum of$2 million, denied his motion to withdraw an equal sum from the same account as an advanceagainst his share of equitable distribution, (2) so much of an order of the same court datedFebruary 7, 2006, as granted those branches of the wife's motion which were for an award of anattorneys' fee in the sum of $150,000 and to compel him to produce certain financial documents,and denied that branch of his motion which was for the release of the proceeds from a certainlimited partnership, and (3) so much of an order the same court dated February 9, 2006, asgranted the wife's motion to enjoin him from using the proceeds from the limited partnershippending further order of the Supreme Court or disposition of the action.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the husband's contention, the oral stipulation of settlement, read into the recordon June 7, 2005, was intended by both parties to be a full, final, and binding settlement.[*2]"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightlycast aside" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Where an oralstipulation is read into the record and found by the court to be fair and reasonable, it will not bedisturbed absent a showing of one of the recognized grounds for vacatur, e.g., fraud, duress,mistake, or overreaching (see Harrington v Harrington, 103 AD2d 356, 359 [1984]; accord Zafran v Zafran, 28 AD3d752 [2006]; Leahy v Leahy, 9AD3d 351 [2004]; Lazich v Lazich, 233 AD2d 425 [1996]). Here, the parties, withboth counsel present, knowingly entered into a comprehensive open-court agreement, which theyclearly intended would constitute a final and binding settlement, and the husband has failed toestablish any reason why this agreement should be set aside. Accordingly, as the stipulationprovided, among other things, that the husband would pay the sum of $150,000 in attorneys' feesto the wife, the Supreme Court properly granted the wife's motion for enforcement of thatprovision. Similarly, the Supreme Court properly directed the husband to provide certainfinancial documents to the wife.
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio andFisher, JJ., concur.