You are here: / / SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE...

SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the separation agreements were unconscionable. Defendant wife was represented by counsel in the divorce, plaintiff husband was not, there was a vast difference in assets, wife’s pensions were not valued, and financial disclosure was not complete. The matter was sent back for new rulings on equitable distribution and maintenance:

 

A separation agreement should be set aside as unconscionable where it is “such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other . . . , the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . We note that the unconscionability or inequality of a separation agreement may be the result of overreaching by one party to the detriment of another … .

​

Here, at the time the parties entered into the agreements, defendant wife was represented by counsel but plaintiff was not, which, while not dispositive, is a significant factor for us to consider … . Another factor to consider is that the agreements did not make a full disclosure of the finances of the parties … . In particular, defendant, who had a master’s degree in business administration and was a professor at a SUNY college, would receive two pensions upon retirement, neither of which was valued. The separation agreement did not provide for any maintenance for plaintiff despite the gross disparity in incomes and the length of the marriage and, while the modification agreement provided maintenance for plaintiff, it also required plaintiff to transfer his interest in the marital residence to defendant. In opposition to the motion, defendant averred that the parties “wanted an agreement whereby [plaintiff] would keep his income and retirement assets and I would keep mine.” As shown by their statements of net worth, which were prepared after the agreements were executed, plaintiff’s assets totaled approximately $77,000 whereas defendant’s assets, which included the marital residence, totaled approximately $740,000. Based on our consideration of all the factors, we conclude that the agreements here are unconscionable and were the product of overreaching by defendant and thus should be set aside … . Tuzzolino v Tuzzolino, 2017 NY Slip Op 08991, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/SEPARATION AGREEMENTS (FAMILY LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/UNCONSCIONABLE (FAMILY LAW,  MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/DIVORCE (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COUNTY WAS AFFIRMATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS HEARING; THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS THEREFORE IMPROPER AND APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).
Statement Correctly Admitted as Dying Declaration
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S DETERMINATION DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
Decision Offers a Rare, Detailed Discussion of the Probable-Cause Analysis of a Search Warrant Application Which Included Hearsay from Confidential Informants (Analyzed Under the Aguilar-Spinelli Reliability Tests), Controlled Buys and Surveillance

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET... EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH...