| Lazar v Lazar |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07398 [88 AD3d 852] |
| October 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ionica Lazar, Respondent, v Ovidiu Lazar,Appellant. |
—[*1] John A. Gemelli, Esq., P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Emily C. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated May 14, 2010, which denied his motion,inter alia, to stay the signing of the parties' judgment of divorce on the ground that the parties'written stipulation of settlement dated November 13, 2009, should be vacated or modified.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties in this case entered into a comprehensive written stipulation of settlement(see CPLR 2104; Nordgren v Nordgren, 264 AD2d 828, 829 [1999]). Where, ashere, the stipulation is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must begleaned from within the four corners of the instrument (see Micciche v Micciche, 62 AD3d 673 [2009]). A stipulationwhich is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud,duress, overreaching, or unconscionability (see Rubin v Rubin, 33 AD3d 983, 984 [2006]).
Here, the defendant's conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions that the stipulation was theresult of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability were inadequate to render thestipulation unenforceable (id. at 984). Moreover, the stipulation was not so manifestlyunfair on its face as to be unconscionable, given the "meaningful benefits" received by thedefendant (Etzion v Etzion, 62AD3d 646, 654 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, inter alia, to staythe signing of the parties' judgment of divorce on the ground that the stipulation should bevacated or modified. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.