In Goodison v. Goodison (48 N.Y.2d 786, supra), the defendant claimed, among other things, that he was unrepresented when he entered into a separation agreement and that his wife's attorney misled him by stating incorrectly that the amount of support could be modified by the Family Court. Despite this statement, which was far more egregious than anything present in this record, the Court of Appeals held that there was "no basis for relief under Christian v. Christian (42 N.Y.2d 63)" (Goodison v. Goodison, supra, p 788).Summary of this case from Surlak v. Surlak
Argued October 18, 1979
Decided November 15, 1979
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, RICHARD F. KUHNEN, J.
John W. Young for appellant.
Philip E. Van Riper for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 66 A.D.2d 923). We would only add that this record discloses no basis for relief under Christian v Christian ( 42 N.Y.2d 63).
Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.