| Matter of Abeido v Abeido |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06559 [54 AD3d 330] |
| August 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lorraine Abeido, Respondent, v MohsenAbeido, Appellant. |
—[*1] Tilem & Campbell, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Todd W. Carpenter of counsel), forrespondent. Janet Neustaetter, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for thechild.
In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Henry, J.), dated June 29, 2007, whichdenied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated November 14, 2006, which, uponthe consent of both parties, awarded custody of the parties' child to the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
An oral stipulation entered into by the parties in "open court" is binding (CPLR 2104; seeSontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892 [1985]). "Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidatea contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, will a party be relieved from theconsequences of a stipulation made during litigation" (Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d at893). Here, the mother and father agreed to the order of custody in open court. The SupremeCourt specifically informed the father, who was represented by counsel, that the order of custodywould be final. The father acknowledged that he was agreeing to it voluntarily. Therefore, theSupreme Court properly denied the father's motion to vacate the order of custody (cf. Matterof Stefanik v Roberts, 266 AD2d 758 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ.,concur.