Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly held that the instant action challenging a stipulation of settlement, merged into a judgment of divorce dated April 12, 1977, on the basis of alleged misconduct by the plaintiffs former wife in securing the judgment of divorce, was an improper collateral attack upon the judgment of divorce ( see Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109; Vest v Vest, 50 AD3d 776; Cramer v Sabo, 31 AD3d 998; Cooper v Cooper, 179 AD2d 1035). Moreover, had the plaintiff properly asserted his claim of misconduct by a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), it would be barred by the doctrine of laches ( see Amsterdam Sav. Bank v City View Mgt. Corp., 45 NY2d 854, 856; Sieger v Sieger, 51 AD3d 1004). In any event, had the stipulation been incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment, the action would be time-barred ( see CPLR 213, [2]).
Given the plaintiffs concession that he violated the terms of the judgment of divorce by, among other things, executing a will which does not devise the subject premises to the defendant, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment on his counter-claim for permanent injunctive relief ( see Elow v Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674).
[Prior Case History: 23 Misc 3d 1134(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51071(U).]