Matter of Blackstock v Price
2008 NY Slip Op 04687 [51 AD3d 914]
May 20, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


In the Matter of Richard Blackstock,Respondent,
v
Vanessa Price, Appellant.

[*1]Ursula A. Gangemi, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify custody, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Toussaint, J.), dated May 16, 2007, whichdenied her motion to vacate the parties' stipulation of settlement or, in the alternative, for ahearing on the issue of custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother's motion which was to vacatethe stipulation of settlement. Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulationmade on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result offraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224,230 [1984]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]; Bruckstein v Bruckstein,271 AD2d 389, 390 [2000]). The mother's general contentions that she felt pressured by thecourt to settle are insufficient to establish such a claim (see Ross v Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus, 26 AD3d 321 [2006];Desantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d311 [2005]; Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666, 667 [1996]; Sontag v Sontag,114 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1985]). Moreover, the Family Court conducted a proper allocutionof the mother, and determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of thestipulation (see Matter of Siegel, 29AD3d 914, 915 [2006]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to make a sufficientevidentiary showing to support her conclusory and nonspecific allegations relating to a change in[*2]circumstances that would justify a hearing on the issue ofwhether awarding her sole custody would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Shapira v Shapira, 283 AD2d at 478). Mastro, J.P., Rivera,Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.