Justice Rudolph Greco Jr.
Wife sought to vacate the basic child support and child support add-on provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement that was placed on the record before the court. The court noted the stipulation was never signed, and counsel argued the oral agreement must be set aside as it failed to comply with the requirement for a valid stipulation regarding child support under Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b)(h). In a case of apparent first impression regarding which stipulations §240(1-b)(h) covered, the court opined §240(1-b)(h) was applicable to written and executed stipulations only, and not oral agreements on the record. Yet, it noted the instant oral stipulation substantially complied with the "statutory catechisms" of §240(1-b)(h) as they were recited, except the presumptively correct amount of child support the parties agreed to deviate from. The court found the parties fully consented to the agreement given their in-depth bargaining with quid pro quo concessions. Thus, despite §240(1-b)(h) only applying to written and executed agreements, the substantial compliance favored enforceability of stipulations entered into in open court. Hence, the stipulation was found valid and enforceable as to all provisions, and wife’s motion was denied.