Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The wife's vague and conclusory allegations of duress, fraud and overreaching in connection with the execution of an "opting-out" property settlement are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067-1068; see also, Wile v Wile, 100 A.D.2d 932). Without a showing that the settlement is manifestly unfair due to the defendant's overreaching in its execution, equity will not interfere (see, Levine v Levine, 56 N.Y.2d 42, 47; Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 72-73).
Furthermore, by accepting the benefits under the agreement for a period of three years, the plaintiff ratified the agreement since "`a party seeking to repudiate a contract procured by duress must act promptly lest he be deemed to have elected to affirm it'" (Stoerchle v Stoerchle, 101 A.D.2d 831, 832; see, Patti v Patti, 146 A.D.2d 757; Osborn v Osborn, 144 A.D.2d 350, 351; Melchiorre v Melchiorre, 142 A.D.2d 558; Shalmoni v Shalmoni, 141 A.D.2d 628, 629; Chalos v Chalos, 128 A.D.2d 498, 499; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 A.D.2d 930, 931). Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.