Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §236 (B)(3) deals with the enforceability of nuptial agreements in a matrimonial action. It provides that "[a]n agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded."

In Matisoff v. Dobi, 90 N.Y.2d 127 (1997), the Court of Appeals observed that DRL §236(B)(3), requires that a nuptial agreement be signed and duly acknowledged, (or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded), to be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action. It held that there are no exceptions and specifically rejected the argument that the Legislature intended that some agreements, though unacknowledged, could be enforceable, observing that the history of DRL §236(B)(3) did not reflect that intent.

The court noted that DRL §236(B), does not incorporate the Statute of Frauds. Rather, "it prescribes its own, more onerous requirements for a nuptial agreement to be enforceable in a matrimonial action. In contrast to the Statute of Frauds, DRL §236(B)(3) mandates that the agreement be acknowledged." The Court of Appeals observed that the formality of acknowledgment underscores the weighty personal choices to relinquish significant property or inheritance rights, or to resolve important issues concerning child custody, education and care. It held that "by clearly prescribing acknowledgment as a condition, with no exception, the Legislature opted for a bright-line rule." It concluded that an unacknowledged agreement is invalid and unenforceable in a matrimonial action.