From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Osborne-Talan v. Talan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 2000
276 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

October 24, 2000.

Pro Se for plaintiff-appellant.

Christopher T. Owen, for defendant-respondent.

Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Rubin, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered July 14, 1999, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the parties' separation agreement, incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, and/or upwardly modify its maintenance provisions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Relief in the nature of setting aside the parties' separation agreement was properly denied since the agreement is not manifestly unfair to plaintiff, and no evidence was adduced tending to show that it was the result of fraud or other inequitable conduct by defendant (see, Luftig v. Luftig, 239 A.D.2d 225, 227). Nor does plaintiff adduce any evidence of "extreme hardship" such as might warrant an upward modification of the maintenance amounts of the agreement (Domestic Relations Law 23 6[B][9][b]; see, id., at 227-228). We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Osborne-Talan v. Talan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 2000
276 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Osborne-Talan v. Talan

Case Details

Full title:BONNIE OSBORNE-TALAN, Appellant, v. JEFFREY TALAN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 24, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 837

Citing Cases

Mahan v. Mahan

Plaintiff is challenging an agreement under which she already has received substantial financial benefits,…