Antar v. Antar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antar v. Antar

155 A.D.2d 570, 547 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14374

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 570 (Antar v. Antar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antar v. Antar, 155 A.D.2d 570, 547 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alla, for rescission of a separation agreement entered into in May 1984, vacatur of a judgment of divorce entered February 5, 1985, a de nova determination as to support and counsel fees upon rescission of the separation agreement, and removal of the defendant husband as cocustodian of certain accounts maintained for the benefit of the infant issue of the parties, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated September 6, 1988, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[571]*571Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, as we must on a motion addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint, we find that the plaintiffs complaint states causes of action as to the defendant’s overreaching, fraud and unconscionability which, if proven, would also be sufficient to preclude an estoppel argument with respect to the plaintiffs claim seeking to set aside the separation agreement and the judgment of divorce. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alla, for rescission of a separation agreement entered into in May 1984, vacatur of a judgment of divorce entered February 5, 1985, a de nova determination as to support and counsel fees upon rescission of the separation agreement, and removal of the defendant husband as cocustodian of certain accounts maintained for the benefit of the infant issue of the parties, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated September 6, 1988, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[571]*571Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, as we must on a motion addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint, we find that the plaintiffs complaint states causes of action as to the defendant’s overreaching, fraud and unconscionability which, if proven, would also be sufficient to preclude an estoppel argument with respect to the plaintiffs claim seeking to set aside the separation agreement and the judgment of divorce. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 570, 547 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antar-v-antar-nyappdiv-1989.