Opinion
March 13, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).
We find no merit to plaintiff's claim that the stipulation signed by the parties herein was unconscionable. "[A]n unconscionable bargain has been regarded as one `"such as no [person] in his [or her] senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair [person] would accept on the other"' (Hume v United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411), the inequality being `"so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense"' (Mandel v Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 94)" (Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71). In that regard, the court encourages property settlements through stipulation and will exercise judicial review sparingly (Christian v Christian, supra, at 71-72). However, the court will strickly scrutinize separation agreements to ascertain that the terms are fair and equitable and were not the result of fraud or duress (Yuda v Yuda, 143 A.D.2d 657). A stipulation will be vacated, even if actual fraud is not shown, if the settlement is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other's overreaching (Christian v Christian, supra, at 72). Each party herein was represented by independent counsel. In exchange for the wife retaining the house, the husband keeps 100% of his pension, full title to the Florida real estate and $10,000 when the house is sold. Thus, the agreement cannot be deemed unfair and inequitable.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.