Glaser v. Glaser

127 A.D.2d 741, 512 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43225
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 741 (Glaser v. Glaser) 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
Glaser v. Glaser, 127 A.D.2d 741, 512 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In an action for rescission of a separation agreement, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated January 24, 1986, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff wife alleges in her amended complaint in this action for rescission of the separation agreement between herself and the defendant husband that (1) at the time of the execution of the agreement she was under the influence of cocaine and lacked the capacity to enter into a contract, and (2) that the agreement was fraudulently obtained. Neither cause of action may withstand the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

Assuming for the purposes of argument that the plaintiff was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the execution of the agreement, she acquiesced in the agreement and received benefits under it for a considerable period of time subsequent to being under the influence of cocaine and by her actions ratified the agreement (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d [742]*742957, 958; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 AD2d 930, 931). Further, the plaintiffs cause of action sounding in fraud was not alleged with sufficient particularity to comply with CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Greschler v Greschler, 71 AD2d 322, 324-325, mod on other grounds 51 NY2d 368). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Weissman v. Weissman
42 A.D.3d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Riley v. Riley
179 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Stacom v. Wunsch
162 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Anonymous v. Anonymous
137 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Cordero v. Cordero
135 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Hirsch v. Hirsch
134 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
McDonald v. State University of New York
129 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 741, 512 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaser-v-glaser-nyappdiv-1987.