Reader v. Reader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reader v. Reader

236 A.D.2d 829, 653 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 829 (Reader v. Reader) 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

Reader v. Reader, 236 A.D.2d 829, 653 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant’s counterclaim seeking partial rescission of the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant’s allegations of unconscionability, unfairness, fraud and duress are not substantiated by proof sufficient to justify setting aside the parties’ agreement (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73; Hunt v Hunt [appeal No. 2], 184 AD2d 1010, 1011). Moreover, by accepting the benefits of the agreement for 151/2 months before attempting to seek rescission, defendant is deemed to have ratified the agreement (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957, 958; Luce v Luce [appeal No. 2], 213 AD2d 978, 978-979). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant’s counterclaim seeking partial rescission of the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant’s allegations of unconscionability, unfairness, fraud and duress are not substantiated by proof sufficient to justify setting aside the parties’ agreement (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73; Hunt v Hunt [appeal No. 2], 184 AD2d 1010, 1011). Moreover, by accepting the benefits of the agreement for 151/2 months before attempting to seek rescission, defendant is deemed to have ratified the agreement (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957, 958; Luce v Luce [appeal No. 2], 213 AD2d 978, 978-979). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 829, 653 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reader-v-reader-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack