Opinion
June 9, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"It is well settled that absent a showing that a stipulation of settlement was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed by the court" (Enright v. Vasile, 205 A.D.2d 732, 733; see also, Gadomski v. Gadomski, 189 A.D.2d 800; Wilutis v. Wilutis, 184 A.D.2d 639). "[W]here the agreement is fair on its face, such that there is no inference of overreaching, vacatur is not warranted even if one party failed to disclose financial information, unless the undisclosed information was of such consequence that had it been disclosed, the other party would not have executed the agreement" (Ruxton v. Ruxton, 181 A.D.2d 876; see also, Stockfield v. Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834). The husband's failure to disclose that he received a payment from a creditor did not render the stipulation of settlement so patently unfair as to require its vacatur.
Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.