SHAPIRA v. SHAPIRA

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to set aside the stipulation of settlement. As a general rule, a stipulation of settlement made in open court by parties who are represented by counsel will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability (see, Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Wilson v. Neppell, 253 A.D.2d 493). The defendant's allegations that the Supreme Court pressured him into executing the stipulation are not supported by the record (see, Cantamessa v. Cantamessa, 170 A.D.2d 792, 793; Washo v. Washo, 170 A.D.2d 827; Anderson v. Anderson, 90 A.D.2d 763). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged stipulation was not unconscionable (see, Hardenburgh v. Hardenburgh, 158 A.D.2d 585).

Similarly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant's self-serving, conclusory allegations were not sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue of modifying the custody and child support provisions set forth in the stipulation (see, Teuschler v. Teuschler, 242 A.D.2d 289; David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.