| Ntourmas v Ntourmas |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02462 [126 AD3d 957] |
| March 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| George Ntourmas, Respondent, v Erene Ntourmas, Appellant. |
John Braslow, North Babylon, N.Y. (Robert R. Meguin of counsel), for appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to vacate the child support provisions set forth in a stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), entered May 1, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to vacate the provisions in the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce relating to child support and child support "add-ons," and to vacate any orders or money judgments enforcing those provisions, and denied that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action to vacate the parties' stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce which set forth, inter alia, the plaintiff's child support obligations. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the child support and child support "add-on" provisions of the stipulation and judgment of divorce, and to vacate any orders or money judgments enforcing those provisions. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motion, and referred the matter for a determination of the child support and child support add-on obligations. The court also denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the stipulation of settlement failed to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h), and that the provisions of the stipulation relating to child support and child support add-ons were invalid (see Cimons v Cimons, 53 AD3d 125 [2008]; Arato v Arato, 15 AD3d 511 [2005]; Backhaus v Backhaus, 288 AD2d 411 [2001]; Tolchin v Freeman, 275 AD2d 452 [2000]). Accordingly, the court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to vacate those provisions as well as any orders or money judgments enforcing those provisions.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.