Volfman v. Volfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volfman v. Volfman

30 A.D.3d 505, 816 N.Y.S.2d 369

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 2006·Published

Opinion

In a consolidated action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated March 2, 2005, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, determined that the separation agreement between the parties dated May 24, 2002, was valid.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘A separation agreement or stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionabil[506]*506ity’ ” (Brennan-Duffy v Duffy, 22 AD3d 699 [2005], quoting Linder v Linder, 297 AD2d 710, 711 [2002]; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate any ground to set aside the parties’ separation agreement (see Cohn v Cohn, 15 AD3d 332 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the separation agreement was valid (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42, 48 [1982]; Warren v Rabinowitz, 228 AD2d 492 [1996]). Crane, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated March 2, 2005, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, determined that the separation agreement between the parties dated May 24, 2002, was valid.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘A separation agreement or stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionabil[506]*506ity’ ” (Brennan-Duffy v Duffy, 22 AD3d 699 [2005], quoting Linder v Linder, 297 AD2d 710, 711 [2002]; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate any ground to set aside the parties’ separation agreement (see Cohn v Cohn, 15 AD3d 332 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the separation agreement was valid (see Levine v Levine, 56 NY2d 42, 48 [1982]; Warren v Rabinowitz, 228 AD2d 492 [1996]). Crane, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Volfman v. Volfman, 30 A.D.3d 505, 816 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

30 A.D.3d 505 (Volfman v. Volfman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related