DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Judicial review of separation agreements is to be exercised sparingly, with a goal of encouraging parties to settle their differences on their own ( cf. Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71-72). A party seeking to set aside a separation agreement which is fair on its face must prove fraud, duress, overreaching, or that the agreement is unconscionable ( see Wilson v. Neppell, 253 A.D.2d 493, 494; Abrams v. Abrams, 240 A.D.2d 445, 446; cf. Christian v. Christian, supra at 72). The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was not entitled to set aside the separation agreement ( see Strangolagalli v. Strangolagalli, 295 A.D.2d 338). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded to the defendant.
In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's remaining contention need not be addressed.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.