Matter of Landis

Annotate this Case
Matter of Landis 2011 NY Slip Op 08651 Decided on November 29, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 29, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ. 6178 & In re the Supplemental Application
500155/10 -4623

[*1]of Marc A. Landis, etc.,

Mark A. Landis, Petitioner-Respondent, David Debora, Cross-Petitioner-Respondent, Claire Debora, Respondent-Appellant.


Davidoff Malito & Hutcher LLP, New York (Derek Wolman
of counsel), for appellant.
Lissner & Lissner LLP, New York (Barbara H. Urbach Lissner
of counsel), temporary personal needs guardian for appellant.
Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Elizabeth A. Adinolfi of
counsel), for Marc A. Landis, respondent.
Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., New York (Jerry S. Goldman of
counsel), for David Debora, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie E. Williams J.), entered June 13, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, vacated, sua sponte, a so-ordered stipulation of settlement, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the stipulation reinstated.

As the parties concede, the IAS court erred when it acted on its own initiative in vacating the parties' stipulation of settlement of this article 81 proceeding (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Charlop v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 64 AD3d 486, 486 [2009]). Rather, the proper course of action would have been to hold an evidentiary hearing (see Kabir v Kabir, 85 AD3d 1127, 1127-1128 [2011]). Alternatively, the petitioner or cross petitioner could have moved for enforcement of the stipulation (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230).

M-4623 - Landis v Debora [*2] Motion to strike briefs of cross

petitioner and temporary personal

needs guardian denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 29, 2011

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.