Recitation as required by CPLR 2219(a) of the papers considered in the review of the motions referenced abovePapers NumberedPlaintiff’s Motion to invalidate Separation Agreement (001) 1Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [and Opposition] (002) 2Plaintiff’s Opposition to 002 and Reply on 001 3Defendant’s Reply on 002 4Transcript of Argument Held on August 2, 2017 5
*1By motion dated June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Wife seeks an Order setting aside and declaring as invalid the parties’ separation agreement dated October 18, 2003. Wife further seeks an Order: (1) directing Husband to maintain the status quo pendente lite by paying certain enumerated expenses; (2) awarding her exclusive use and occupancy of the former marital home; (3) awarding her exclusive use and possession of a 2012 Jeep Liberty; (4) directing Husband to maintain insurance for her benefit; and (5) awarding her interim pendente lite counsel fees in the amount of $10,000. By motion dated July 10, 2017 (which is a technically a cross motion) Defendant Husband seeks an Order (a) denying the Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety; (b) declaring the validity of the separation agreement and enforcing its terms; (c) obligating the Plaintiff to reimburse the Defendant for expenses he paid relating to the marital home; (d) obligating the Plaintiff to pay all expenses related to the marital home, pendente lite; or (e) in the alternative, awarding Wife temporary maintenance in accordance with the statutory guidelines.While Husband’s motion also serves as his opposition to Wife’s application, he consents therein to Wife having exclusive use of the Parties’ Jeep Liberty, and consents to maintaining Wife’s car insurance policy pendente lite. Husband also acknowledges that the “automatic Orders” obligate him to maintain Wife on his existing health insurance policy, pendente lite. (See Pg. 11, Para. 27).Factual BackgroundMost of the facts pertinent to this Decision are not in dispute. The parties to this action were married in August of 2000. In or around 2002, after the parties’ relationship soured, the Plaintiff sought out and hired an attorney to draft a “separation agreement.” The separation agreement was signed on October 18, 2003, and both parties agree that it was properly drafted and acknowledged. See Galetta v. Galetta, 21 NY3d 186 (2013).Despite entering into a separation agreement only two years after getting married, the parties only physically separated for a short period of time.1 While the exact duration of this brief separation is disputed, both parties acknowledge that the exact duration does not affect their legal arguments regarding the validity of the separation agreement. (Tr. 8/2/17 pg.5). More relevant, is the fact that after this brief period of separation the parties reconciled, to some degree, and cohabited for the next twelve years.Wife argues that during this period of reconciliation the parties held themselves out to be Husband and Wife, celebrated their wedding anniversary, vacationed together, shared the same bedroom and continued to have intimate relations. Husband does not dispute any of these allegations, but claims that the parties were not happy during that time frame. Husband argues that their marriage
