Majid v Hasson (2023 NY Slip Op 01035) Majid v Hasson 2023 NY Slip Op 01035 Decided on February 23, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered:February 23, 2023 534093 [*1]Mohammed A. Majid, Respondent, vFatat A. Hasson, Appellant. Calendar Date:January 17, 2023 Before:Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and McShan, JJ. Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Anthony R. Bjelke of counsel), for appellant. Cometti Law Firm, Delmar (Mario D. Cometti of counsel), for respondent. Reynolds Fitzgerald, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kimberly A. O'Connor, J.), entered August 31, 2021 in Albany County, granting, among other things, plaintiff a divorce, upon a decision of the court. Plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) and defendant (hereinafter the wife) were married in Iraq in 1988 and thereafter immigrated to the United States. The parties have one unemancipated child (born in 2010). The husband commenced an action for divorce in April 2019. The wife applied for poor person status and appointment of counsel, which Supreme Court granted in June 2019. The parties thereafter engaged in discovery and, on the eve of trial, executed a settlement agreement. According to the wife, she immediately rescinded her assent and demanded the return of the agreement. When it was not returned to her, she sought, and was appointed, new counsel. The wife eventually moved to set aside the settlement agreement asserting that her lack of English proficiency and the general economic unfairness of the terms rendered the agreement unjust and unconscionable. Supreme Court denied the wife's motion in an order and entered a judgment of divorce incorporating, but not merging, the settlement agreement, thus prompting the wife's appeal.[FN1] A settlement agreement is a legally binding and enforceable contract subject to enforcement in the same manner as any other contract (see Weddell v Trichka, 200 AD3d 1464, 1464 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 155 AD3d 1271, 1272 [3d Dept 2017]). However, the parties' ability to enter into an enforceable settlement agreement is specifically conditioned upon the provisions of General Obligations Law § 5-311 (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; Massari v Massari, 55 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50412[U], *7 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 2017]). General Obligations Law § 5-311 prohibits spouses from contracting to dissolve a marriage and "relieve either of his or her liability to support the other in such a manner that he or she will become incapable of self-support and therefore is likely to become a public charge" (see Curran v Curran, 169 AD2d 975, 976 [3d Dept 1991]; Slocum v Slocum, 42 AD2d 56, 57 [3d Dept 1973]). Initially, the wife argues that due to her lack of proficiency in English, she failed to read the agreement and to comprehend the legal implications of executing same. The record does not support this. There is no …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals