Opinion
November 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.).
Plaintiff brought this action to rescind or reform the parties' October 31, 1987 separation agreement because of the instrument's "basic inequities" and defendant's alleged fraud and overreaching in its procurement. Defendant counterclaimed for unpaid maintenance in the amount of $300 per month for March 1990 and each month thereafter. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for the amount demanded on her counterclaim, and plaintiff now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, the fact that plaintiff was not represented by an attorney in connection with the execution of the separation agreement is not of itself a sufficient basis to invalidate it (see, Chauhan v Thakur, 184 A.D.2d 744, 745; Zambito v Zambito, 171 A.D.2d 918, 919, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1125). Notably, the agreement recites that plaintiff was advised to and made a conscious decision not to seek the assistance of an attorney to represent him in connection therewith, that plaintiff had no contact with defendant's counsel and, in fact, that plaintiff would not seek to set aside the terms and conditions of the separation agreement on the basis that he was unrepresented by counsel (see, supra). The further contentions that defendant did not understand the terms of the agreement and was unaware of the value and extent of the parties' assets are similarly refuted by the instrument's specific terms. Also unavailing are the claims that plaintiff only entered into the agreement to show his love and commitment to defendant (see, Groper v Groper, 132 A.D.2d 492, 497) and the wholly conclusory and unsubstantiated allegation that his psychological problems rendered him incapable of making a rational decision (see, Springer v Grattan-Arnoff, 172 A.D.2d 1084, 1085). Moreover, by accepting the benefit of the agreement and not bringing suit for 31 months, plaintiff is deemed to have ratified it (see, Bonem v Garriott, 159 A.D.2d 206, 207; Groper v Groper, supra, at 495-496). Finally, the separation agreement is by no means unconscionable (see, Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-73).
Yesawich Jr., J.P., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.