From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinstein v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1985
109 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 25, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's allegations that she was under emotional stress during the period of time that the subject separation agreement was being negotiated and that she "was unaware of her rights and remedies and unable to make a free, intelligent and informed decision as to whether to enter into said * * * agreement" are insufficient under the circumstances of this case to state a cause of action. Here, as in Beutel v. Beutel ( 55 N.Y.2d 957, 958), during the period when the agreement was being negotiated, "plaintiff was represented by an attorney who undertook the actual negotiations. Implicitly, plaintiff's attorney also approved the terms of the agreement and there is no contrary showing". Plaintiff's allegations that she was unaware of her rights and that she signed the agreement under duress are rebutted by the agreement's direct acknowledgments to the contrary. Nor can it be said that the agreement is unfair or unconscionable on its face. "The court will not rewrite an agreement of separation that is regular on its face, where each party was aided by counsel throughout the negotiations and there is no showing of overreaching, fraud or duress" ( Steers v Steers, 69 A.D.2d 858; Stoerchle v. Stoerchle, 101 A.D.2d 831; Barry v. Barry, 100 A.D.2d 920, affd 64 N.Y.2d 627). "Judicial review is to be exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view to the encouragement of parties settling their own differences in connection with the negotiation of property settlement provisions" ( Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-72). Defendant's motion for summary judgment was therefore properly granted. Additionally, insofar as her allegations of duress are concerned, plaintiff must be deemed to have ratified the agreement since she accepted the benefits thereunder for nearly two years ( Beutel v. Beutel, supra; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 A.D.2d 930, appeal dismissed 57 N.Y.2d 775). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weinstein v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1985
109 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Weinstein v. Weinstein

Case Details

Full title:ELEANOR WEINSTEIN, Appellant, v. MYRON N. WEINSTEIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 25, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Cosh v. Cosh

Similarly, the defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of spousal abuse were insufficient to demonstrate that…

Van Wie v. Van Wie

A request for equitable relief from the terms of a separation agreement must be set forth in detail and with…