Kaplan v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Kaplan

61 A.D.2d 1025, 403 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1025 (Kaplan v. Kaplan) 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

Kaplan v. Kaplan, 61 A.D.2d 1025, 403 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce on the ground that the husband and wife have lived separate and apart for one year pursuant to a written agreement of separation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 1977, which denied her motion to dismiss the defenses and counterclaims contained in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the defendant’s answer. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The defendant seeks, by way of his answer, to reform or modify certain provisions of the separation agreement entered into by the parties. However, he makes no claim that he was in any way the victim of fraud, overreaching, duress or unconscionability. The separation agreement was acceptable to both parties when made, and its terms are not subject to attack on the grounds set forth by the defendant (cf. Matthews v Schusheim, 42 AD2d 217, affd 35 NY2d 686). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce on the ground that the husband and wife have lived separate and apart for one year pursuant to a written agreement of separation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 1977, which denied her motion to dismiss the defenses and counterclaims contained in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the defendant’s answer. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The defendant seeks, by way of his answer, to reform or modify certain provisions of the separation agreement entered into by the parties. However, he makes no claim that he was in any way the victim of fraud, overreaching, duress or unconscionability. The separation agreement was acceptable to both parties when made, and its terms are not subject to attack on the grounds set forth by the defendant (cf. Matthews v Schusheim, 42 AD2d 217, affd 35 NY2d 686). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1025, 403 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack