O'Shell v O'Shell
2008 NY Slip Op 07101 [54 AD3d 914]
September 23, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Kevin P. O'Shell, Respondent,
v
Gail A. O'Shell,Appellant.

[*1]Bank, Sheer, Seymour & Hashmall, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael S. Bank of counsel),for appellant.

McCarthy Fingar, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Joel Martin Aurnou of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief,from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), enteredMay 16, 2007, as denied that branch of her motion which was, in effect, to modify the terms of astipulation of settlement entered into in open court, and (2) so much of a judgment of the samecourt dated June 11, 2007 as failed to award her a portion of the plaintiff's annuity.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it isfurther,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appealtherefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for reviewand have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside (seeHallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). "Only where there is causesufficient to invalidate [*2]a contract, such as fraud, collusion,mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made duringlitigation" (id. at 230; seeHannigan v Hannigan, 50 AD3d 957 [2008]). Here, since the defendant failed toestablish such sufficient cause, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motionwhich was, in effect, to modify the terms of the stipulation entered into in open court.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or withoutmerit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Dickerson, 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.