Defendant's motion to renew and reargue should not have been granted, based as it was, on evidence, namely, a certificate of acknowledgment, that defendant could have but did not submit on the original motion ( see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). In any event, we would not permit defendant to cure this defect in the agreement by an alleged acknowledgement in affidavit form which was executed and which surfaced some 12 years after the fact in the midst of a contested matrimonial action in light of the required formalities of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3) ( cf., Matisoff v. Dobi, 90 N.Y.2d 127).

Concerning the cause of action for annulment, the complaint sets forth facts sufficient to give defendant notice of the behavior claimed to constitute incurable mental illness under Domestic Relations Law § 7 (5) and § 140 (f), and there is no merit to defendant's claim that Domestic Relations Law § 7 (5) violates the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act ( see, Kapner v. Kapner, 1996 US Dist LEXIS 8541 [ED Pa, June 18, 1996, Green, J.]). Any perceived inequities in the awards of interim counsel fees and temporary maintenance should be remedied at trial ( see, 241 A.D.2d 353).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.