Opinion
November 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Based upon a review of the record herein, we conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant engaged in fraudulent and coercive conduct in procuring the plaintiff wife's consent to the parties' separation agreement as well as her power of attorney which permitted the defendant to procure a foreign divorce judgment (see, Feinberg v Feinberg, 96 Misc.2d 443, affd 70 A.D.2d 612; see also, Prime v Hinton, 244 App. Div. 181). Similarly, a question of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff ratified the terms of the separation agreement (see, Beutel v Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957; Anonymous v Anonymous, 137 A.D.2d 739). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.