STAMPFEL v. STAMPFEL

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.