Spataro v. SpataroSpataro v. Spataro
—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,
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,