From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strangolagalli v. Strangolagalli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

recognizing judicial review of settlement agreement in divorce action is to be exercised sparingly, with goal of encouraging parties to settle their disputes on their own

Summary of this case from Fridley v. Plum

Opinion

01-04882

Argued May 2, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action, inter alia, to rescind a separation agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated April 18, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Del Vecchio Recine, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Phyllis Recine of counsel), for appellant.

Emily Lynn Singer, Greenlawn, N.Y., for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of separation agreements is to be exercised sparingly, with a goal of encouraging parties to settle their differences on their own (see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63). A party seeking to set aside a separation agreement which is fair on its face must prove fraud, duress, overreaching, or that the agreement is unconscionable (see Christian v. Christian, supra at 73; Collison-Harrington v. Harrington, 279 A.D.2d 444; Wilson v. Neppell, 253 A.D.2d 493). The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff is not entitled to set aside the separation agreement (see Collison-Harrington v. Harrington, supra; Piccone v. Chamberlain, 271 A.D.2d 667; Wilson v. Neppell, supra; Wasserman v. Wasserman, 217 A.D.2d 544; Middleton v. Middleton, 174 A.D.2d 655; Springer v. Grattan-Arnoff, 172 A.D.2d 1084; Greenfield v. Greenfield, 147 A.D.2d 440). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issues of fact, since his allegations are insufficient to create an inference of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability (see Kammerer v. Kammerer, 278 A.D.2d 282; Wilson v. Neppell, supra at 494; Surlack v. Surlack, 95 A.D.2d 371). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Strangolagalli v. Strangolagalli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

recognizing judicial review of settlement agreement in divorce action is to be exercised sparingly, with goal of encouraging parties to settle their disputes on their own

Summary of this case from Fridley v. Plum
Case details for

Strangolagalli v. Strangolagalli

Case Details

Full title:JOHN STRANGOLAGALLI, appellant, v. JANINE KRAMER STRANGOLAGALLI, respondent

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Ricca v. Ricca

Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, the child support provisions of the stipulation of settlement…

Sweeney v. Sweeney

When the moving party offers evidentiary material, the court is required to determine whether the proponent…