You are here: / / CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE...
,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action was unconscionable should have been dismissed:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of her cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second cause of action, seeking to set aside the stipulation on the ground of unconscionability. “‘An unconscionable bargain is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense'” … . “An agreement, however, is not unconscionable ‘merely because, in retrospect, some of its provisions were improvident or one-sided'” … . Here, the terms of the stipulation, while perhaps improvident or one-sided in favor of the defendant, were not so unfair as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense. Heinemann v Heinemann, 2020 NY Slip Op 08044, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply
JUDGE EXHIBITED BIAS AGAINST MOTHER AND INTERFERED EXCESSIVELY IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; NEW HEARING ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Serve In Manner Stated in Order to Show Cause Is a Jurisdictional Defect.
ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY AND MADE PERIODIC REPAIRS, IT WAS NOT A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION” SUCH THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED; IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION,” THE MORTGAGOR MUST CONSENT TO THE BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ABSENT SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Guilt to Department of Probation (DOP) Was Not a Violation of a Condition that Defendant Cooperate With the DOP

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN... THE REFEREE REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON HEARSAY AND THEREFORE...