Opinion
April 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In view of the fact that the plaintiff, who was at all times represented by counsel, approved the subject stipulation in open court, her conclusory allegations regarding the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations are unavailing and without evidentiary value. On the contrary, the record reveals that the provisions of the stipulation are not manifestly unfair, that there was no overreaching present in its inception and that the plaintiff's conduct in accepting the benefits thereof for some 4 1/2 years constitutes a ratification (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957, 958; Surlak v Surlak, 95 A.D.2d 371, 381, lv dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 906). Given the binding nature of the stipulation (Zioncheck v Zioncheck, 99 A.D.2d 563) and the general policy that "[j]udicial review is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions" (see, Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-72), there was no basis for disturbing either the parties' stipulation or their final judgment of divorce. Under the circumstances, it was not error to deny the plaintiff's frivolous application without conducting an evidentiary hearing (Auble v Auble, 90 A.D.2d 667, lv dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 820; cf., Kleinberg v Gershman, 116 A.D.2d 555, 556).
Inasmuch as there was no evidence in the record to indicate that the plaintiff was unable to meet the cost of her own counsel fees, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that branch of her application (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 A.D.2d 386, 393, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 646; Kann v Kann, 38 A.D.2d 545). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.