Cohn v. Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohn v. Cohn

15 A.D.3d 332, 788 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1374

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2005·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), entered January 29, 2003, which, after a hearing to determine whether the financial provisions of the parties’ separation agreement were enforceable, in effect, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss certain of her claims for equitable distribution and support as barred by the separation agreement and, in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was for judgment on her cause of action to vacate the financial provisions of the separation agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A separation agreement which is fair on its face will not be set aside absent fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability (see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]; Davella v Davella, 8 AD3d 424, 425 [2004]; Strangolagalli v Strangolagalli, 295 AD2d 338 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any ground to set aside the financial provisions of the parties’ separation agreement. Thus the Supreme Court properly determined that the agreement was enforceable (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42 [1982]; Warren v Rabinowitz, 228 AD2d 492 [1996]). Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.H.O.), entered January 29, 2003, which, after a hearing to determine whether the financial provisions of the parties’ separation agreement were enforceable, in effect, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss certain of her claims for equitable distribution and support as barred by the separation agreement and, in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was for judgment on her cause of action to vacate the financial provisions of the separation agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A separation agreement which is fair on its face will not be set aside absent fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability (see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]; Davella v Davella, 8 AD3d 424, 425 [2004]; Strangolagalli v Strangolagalli, 295 AD2d 338 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any ground to set aside the financial provisions of the parties’ separation agreement. Thus the Supreme Court properly determined that the agreement was enforceable (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42 [1982]; Warren v Rabinowitz, 228 AD2d 492 [1996]). Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cohn v. Cohn, 15 A.D.3d 332, 788 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

15 A.D.3d 332 (Cohn v. Cohn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related