First, there are a number of large-scale exceptions to the agreement. Under the agreement, the defendant waived its right to support, fair distribution, legal fees, acting lawyer`s fees, distribution premium, pension and pension benefits, and the right to challenge the agreement. The scope of these exceptions cannot be overstated. Moreover, the waiver statements do not even seem to correspond to the reality of the partisan relationship. Such waiver declarations, in particular the waiver of the dependent spouse, “essentially explain that in the event of divorce, the defendant did not need assistance and would not be economically disadvantaged by the years of marriage” (Robert Leckey, subjects of context: family, state and relationship theory at point 118 [2007]. In this case, the parties do not dispute that the plaintiff should be the sole source of family income, while the defendant educated the children full-time and managed the family`s household affairs. In fact, complainants are actively discouraged from pursuing a career outside the home, going so far as to call their real estate career “a joke” and making fun that it could earn much more in a day than it could in a year. Since the accused is at home as a full-time parent and guardian of the children, it is simply not considered that the accused does not need assistance in the event of divorce and is not economically disadvantaged by the years of marriage. These exceptions are difficult to reconcile with the respective roles of the parties during their relationship and, given the applicant`s conduct during the negotiations, there are legitimate doubts that the exemptions [24] were obtained by excess and are manifestly unfair.

We disagree with the view that the apparent unfairness standard established in Christian (42 NY2d to 63) is not applicable because the parties were not married at the time the contract was executed. In Matter of Greiff (92 NY2d to 341), the Court of Appeal spoke of the uniqueness of inchoate attachment between potential spouses – a relationship of your nature imbued with trust, trust, honesty and trust” (id. at 347; see also Rosenzweig v Givens, 13 NY3d 774, 775 [2009] [recognizing that a couple may have a fiduciary relationship before marriage]; Robinson v Day, 103 AD3d 584, 585 [1st Dept 2013] [Romantic companions of 14 years were in a relationship of confidential trust]; Colello v Colello, 9 AD3d 855, 858-859 [4. Abt 2004] [“The defendant had a fiduciary relationship with [the] plaintiff both as her fiance and as her spouse”]). Second, the agreement contains a comprehensive definition of separate ownership, which applies to almost all real estate acquired by the parties during their marriage, including income. Even assets grouped and grouped together during the marriage must be considered separate assets, based on the amount paid or invested by the party.