We find no merit to plaintiff's claim that the stipulation signed by the parties herein was unconscionable. "[A]n unconscionable bargain has been regarded as one `"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"' (Hume v United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411), the inequality being `"so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any [person] of common sense"' (Mandel v Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 94)" (Christian v Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 71). In that regard, the court encourages property settlements through stipulation and will exercise judicial review sparingly (Christian v Christian, supra, at 71-72). However, the court will strickly scrutinize separation agreements to ascertain that the terms are fair and equitable and were not the result of fraud or duress (Yuda v Yuda, 143 A.D.2d 657). A stipulation will be vacated, even if actual fraud is not shown, if the settlement is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other's overreaching (Christian v Christian, supra, at 72). Each party herein was represented by independent counsel. In exchange for the wife retaining the house, the husband keeps 100% of his pension, full title to the Florida real estate and $10,000 when the house is sold. Thus, the agreement cannot be deemed unfair and inequitable.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.