From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 30, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find issues of fact which warrant a trial on the validity of the parties' separation agreement.

Although we recognize that a conversion divorce may be granted even if enforcement of the financial provisions of the agreement is denied (see, Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Schisler v Schisler, 106 A.D.2d 441; Russell v. Russell, 90 A.D.2d 516; Picotte v. Picotte, 82 A.D.2d 983), we decline to do so. The plaintiff has alleged that the agreement was void on the basis of fraud, duress and incapacity, which, if found to be true at the trial, would preclude the entry of summary judgment awarding the conversion divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6) (Angeloff v. Angeloff, 56 N.Y.2d 982; Weinstock v. Weinstock, 122 A.D.2d 790; Davidoff v. Davidoff, 93 A.D.2d 805). Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Howard v. Howard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Howard v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:CONSTANCE S. HOWARD, Respondent, v. JAMES T. HOWARD, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Weinstock v. Weinstock

Stated succinctly, the agreement is so manifestly unfair, and the apparent product of coercion and…

Sheridan v. Sheridan

As a final matter, we note that our remittal to Supreme Court for a hearing on plaintiff's motion to set…