| Matter of Singer v Prizer |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04761 [96 AD3d 860] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Singer, Appellant, v Linda A.Prizer, Respondent. |
—[*1] Linda A. Prizer, Hicksville, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated October 26, 2011, which deniedhis objections to an order of the same court (Cahn, S.M.), dated August 19, 2011, which, upon, ineffect, granting that branch of the mother's motion which was to dismiss his petition to terminatehis child support obligation, dismissed his petition.
Ordered that the order dated October 26, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.
The father annexed to his petition a so-ordered stipulation settling certain prior litigationbetween the parties. By attaching the stipulation to the petition, the father made the stipulation "apart of" the petition "for all purposes" (805 Third Ave. Co. v M.W. Realty Assoc., 58NY2d 447, 451 [1983]; see CPLR 3014).
In the stipulation, the father agreed to pay certain child support to the mother, who, pursuantto the parties' judgment of divorce, had sole custody of the parties' child. The father also agreedthat he would not "bring on any application to . . . modify" the child supportobligation he agreed to.
Under the circumstances, the father was precluded from commencing a proceeding such asthe instant proceeding. Therefore, the cause of action alleged in the petition was "completelyundermined and rendered legally insufficient by the very terms of" the stipulation(Manchester Equip. Co. v Panasonic Indus. Co., 141 AD2d 616, 617 [1988]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the mother's motionwhich was to dismiss the petition (id. at 617-618).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the father's remaining contentions.
We decline the mother's request for the imposition of sanctions against the father pursuant to22 NYCRR 130-1.1 in connection with this appeal. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.