A.D. v. C.R.

Elements of Materiality, Reasonable Reliance Lacking; Stipulation Declared Enforceable

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The following papers were considered on Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendant’s Cross-Motion:Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation of Elizabeth A. Douglas, Esq., and Affidavit of A. D. in Support of Motion with Exhibits: 1-240Defendant’s Notice of Cross-Motion, Affidavit of C. R., Affirmation of Maureen A. Dunn, Esq., in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross-Motion, with Exhibits, and Memorandum of Law: 241-431Affidavit of Plaintiff A. D. and Affirmation of Elizabeth Douglas, Esq. in Opposition to Cross-Motion and in further Support of Motion, with Exhibits: 432-512Reply Affidavit of C. R. and Reply Affirmation of Maureen A. Dunn, with Exhibits: 513-527Transcript of Oral Argument on Motion and Cross-Motion, dated February 22, 2018: 528-575DECISION AND ORDER In this matrimonial action, plaintiff A. D. (“Plaintiff” or “Wife”) has moved by notice of motion “for an Order setting aside the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement dated August 22, 2013 based on fraud” and to then grant “the Plaintiff pendente lite relief of maintenance and counsel fees.” Defendant C. R. (“Defendant” or “Husband”) opposes Plaintiff’s motion, and has interposed a cross-motion to declare “the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement dated August 22, 2013 to be valid and enforceable,” which Plaintiff opposes. Each party also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees. After the motion papers were fully submitted, counsel orally argued the parties’ respective positions on February 22, 2018.Factual BackgroundThe parties were married on February 14, 1997 in Ossining, New York and have two children, ages 18 and 16. This action for divorce was commenced in May 2017. The fulcrum of the instant motion and cross motion is a post-nuptial Stipulation of Settlement entered into on August 22, 2013 (the “Stipulation” or the “Agreement”). The parties separated at or around the same time, and have remained separated. (Pl. Moving Affid.

A.D. v. C.R.

Elements of Materiality, Reasonable Reliance Lacking; Stipulation Declared Enforceable

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal