Szpicek v. Szpicek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szpicek v. Szpicek

222 A.D.2d 575, 636 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 575 (Szpicek v. Szpicek) 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

Szpicek v. Szpicek, 222 A.D.2d 575, 636 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to set aside a separation agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated August 2, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss her amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to void a separation agreement dated October 31, 1991, on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence. However, even taking all of the plaintiff’s allegations to be true and granting her every favorable inference arising therefrom, the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action (see, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391; Morone v Morone, 50 NY2d 481; Green v Leibowitz, 118 AD2d 756). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to set aside a separation agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated August 2, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss her amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to void a separation agreement dated October 31, 1991, on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence. However, even taking all of the plaintiff’s allegations to be true and granting her every favorable inference arising therefrom, the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action (see, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391; Morone v Morone, 50 NY2d 481; Green v Leibowitz, 118 AD2d 756). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 575, 636 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szpicek-v-szpicek-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack