O'Lear v. O'Lear

235 A.D.2d 466, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 466 (O'Lear v. O'Lear) 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
O'Lear v. O'Lear, 235 A.D.2d 466, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to rescind a separation agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered March 21, 1996, as amended by an order of the same court entered April 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied as academic the plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a separation agreement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless fraud, overreaching, or unconscionability is shown (see, Warren v Rabinowitz, 228 AD2d 492). An agreement will not be overturned merely because, in retrospect, some of its provisions were improvident or one-sided (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63; Warren v Rabinowitz, supra; Amestoy v Amestoy, 151 AD2d 709). Here, the agreement appears fair on its face, and the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to create an inference of overreaching and unconscionability in its execution and terms. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that there were no triable issues of fact and denied as academic the plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McEvoy v. McEvoy
196 N.Y.S.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Forman v. Forman
211 A.D.3d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Poirier v. Demasi
162 N.Y.S.3d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Barone v. Barone
2021 NY Slip Op 06338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Hershkowitz v. Levy
2021 NY Slip Op 00299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Heinemann v. Heinemann
2020 NY Slip Op 08044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Cilento v. Cilento
2020 NY Slip Op 4453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Gandham v. Gandham
2019 NY Slip Op 2069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Humes v. Humes
2017 NY Slip Op 8505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Ku v. Huey Min Lee
2017 NY Slip Op 5210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Sanfilippo v. Sanfilippo
137 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Hof v. Hof
131 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
O'Hanlon v. O'Hanlon
114 A.D.3d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Filstein v. Bromberg
36 Misc. 3d 404 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Connor v. Connor
65 V.I. 3 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2011)
Rauso v. Rauso
73 A.D.3d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cioffi-Petrakis v. Petrakis
72 A.D.3d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Label v. Label
70 A.D.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Schultz v. Schultz
58 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Brennan-Duffy v. Duffy
22 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 466, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olear-v-olear-nyappdiv-1997.