DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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). Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted affidavits that were conclusory, vague, and contradicted by documentary evidence. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient to raise an issue of fact, precluding summary judgment ( see Davidoff v. Davidoff, 93 A.D.2d 805). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Davidoff v. Davidoff, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.