From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sweeney v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.)


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in interpreting the parties. stipulation of settlement as precluding the appellant from making an offer to purchase the parties East Hampton property ( see, DiLavore v. "DiLavore, 237 A.D.2d 322; Sklerov. v. Sklerov, 231 A.D.2d 622). Its determination did not amount to a reformation of the stipulation under the guise of interpreting it ( see, Zahiralis v. Hartman, 240 A.D.2d 488; Blake v. Blake, 229 A.D.2d 509):

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellants remaining contentions.

Friedmann, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sweeney v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Sweeney v. Sweeney

Case Details

Full title:PENELOPE SWEENEY, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SWEENEY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 26, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 799

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Piscazzi

A trial court has the inherent authority to vacate a void judgment at any stage in the proceedings. Sweeney…

Fisher v. Fisher

Harris, citing Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156. Modification of defendant's child support…