From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reader v. Reader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 1997
236 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

February 7, 1997.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum : Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to strike defendant's counterclaim seeking partial rescission of the parties ` separation agreement. Defendant's allegations of unconscionability, unfairness, fraud and duress are not substantiated by proof sufficient to justify setting aside the parties' agreement ( see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73; Hunt v Hunt [appeal No. 2], 184 AD2d 1010, 1011). Moreover, by accepting the benefits of the agreement for 151/2 months before attempting to seek rescission, defendant is deemed to have ratified the agreement ( see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957, 958; Luce v Luce [appeal No. 2], 213 AD2d 978, 978-979). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Summary Judgment.)


Summaries of

Reader v. Reader

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 1997
236 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Reader v. Reader

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN H. READER, Appellant, v. JACQUELINE P. READER, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1997

Citations

236 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
653 N.Y.S.2d 768

Citing Cases

Pangelinan v. N. Mariana Islands Ret. Fund

The Retirement Fund provides numerous citations to cases holding that a party's delay was sufficiently long…

Panaggio v. Panaggio

Although she was aware of the allegations forming the basis of her fraud claim since at least 1992, she did…