Majority
—In a matrimonial action in which
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court erred in entertaining the defendant’s motion on the merits, as a motion is not the proper vehicle for challenging a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a divorce judgment. Rather, the defendant should have commenced a plenary action seeking vacatur or reformation of the’ agreement (see, Matter of Scalabrini v Scalabrini, 242 AD2d 725 ; Dombrowski v Dombrowski, 239 AD2d 460 ; Darragh v Darragh, 163 AD2d 648 , 649; Lambert v Lambert, 142 AD2d 557 , 558; see also, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63 , 72).
In any event, the court properly determined that the defendant’s motion was without merit. We further note that under the six-year Statute of Limitations for equitable actions set forth in CPLR 213 (1), the defendant is now time-barred from commencing a plenary action (see, Riley v Riley, 179 AD2d 750 ). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Scalabrini v. Scalabrini 242 AD2d 725 p. 468
- Dombrowski v. Dombrowski 239 AD2d 460 p. 468
- Darragh v. Darragh 163 AD2d 648 at 649 p. 468
- Lambert v. Lambert 142 AD2d 557 at 558 p. 468
- Christian v. Christian 42 NY2d 63 at 72 p. 468
- Riley v. Riley 179 AD2d 750 p. 468