| Kinberg v Kinberg |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03696 [50 AD3d 512] |
| April 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Sara Kinberg, Appellant, v Yoram Kinberg,Respondent. |
—[*1] Jane Bevans, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered March 25, 2002, which,to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, dismissed plaintiff's complaint in her 2001action to set aside the parties' 2000 separation agreement, and directed her to pay defendant $250in connection with fees for a religious divorce, and order, same court and Justice, enteredDecember 5, 2006, which, insofar as appealable, denied renewal of the March 25, 2002 order,unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from resettled judgment of the same court(Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered October 26, 2000, which dissolved the marriage anddirected maintenance, child support and equitable distribution, unanimously dismissed, withoutcosts.
Plaintiff's allegations in support of her claim that the separation agreement is unconscionableor a product of duress or fraud are inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentaryevidence (see Biondi v Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 AD2d 76, 81 [1999],affd 94 NY2d 659 [2000]), including the agreement itself and the minutes of the court'scareful and thorough allocution of plaintiff, during which plaintiff showed no sign of beingcoerced or too ill to understand the agreement into which she was entering. The award of $250 todefendant as plaintiff's share of $5,600 in fees for a religious divorce in Israel is supported by therecord. Plaintiff's motion for renewal four years after the original order was entered was notbased on any additional facts that were unknown to her at the time of the original motion, andplaintiff failed to offer an excuse for omitting such facts (see Elson v Defren, 283 AD2d109, 113 [2001]; Tri-Land Props. v 115 W. 28th St. Corp., 247 AD2d 233 [1998]). In anyevent, the additional facts she presented did not warrant a departure from the motion court'soriginal determinations.
As we denied plaintiff leave to consolidate an appeal from the resettled judgment with herappeals from the March 25, 2002 and December 5, 2006 orders (M-5057, M-5275, M-5332[2007 NY Slip Op 82410(U)]), we [*2]have not considered herarguments in connection with the former appeal, and that appeal is dismissed.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.