HOWARD WEISS, plf-ap, v. MARILYN WEISS, def-res

10063. HOWARD WEISS, plf-ap, v. MARILYN WEISS, def-res — Goodman Jurist & Pandolfo, LLP, Garden City (Gregory Pandolfo of counsel), for ap — Allan J. Berke, New York, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered March 21, 2012, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to enforce the terms of the parties' prenuptial agreement, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for equitable distribution of marital assets, to waive the confidentiality provisions of the parties' interim agreement for the limited purposes of the motion and the divorce action, to enforce the terms of the interim agreement, and for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10063. HOWARD WEISS, plf-ap, v. MARILYN WEISS, def-res — Goodman Jurist & Pandolfo, LLP, Garden City (Gregory Pandolfo of counsel), for ap — Allan J. Berke, New York, for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered March 21, 2012, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to enforce the terms of the parties’ prenuptial agreement, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for equitable distribution of marital assets, to waive the confidentiality provisions of the parties’ interim agreement for the limited purposes of the motion and the divorce action, to enforce the terms of the interim agreement, and for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s claim for equitable distribution of the marital assets is barred by the parties’ prenuptial agreement, which was made before the effective date of the equitable distribution statute and is valid and enforceable (see Domestic Relations Law §236[B][3]; Carner v. Carner, 85 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1981]). The October 1972 agreement provides that each party “waives, releases, renounces and surrenders” any “rights, claims and elections” he or she may ever have “to take any interest or share of the other’s estate or property, whether now owned or hereafter acquired … under any circumstances whatsoever, with the same force or effect as though there had never been a marriage between the parties hereto.” Plaintiff has failed to identify any asset that is held in the parties’ names jointly or denominated as joint property that may therefore be subject to equitable distribution. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it is of no moment that the parties’ prenuptial agreement does not contain an express waiver of equitable distribution (see Van Kipnis v. Van Kipnis, 11 NY3d 573, 579 [2008]).

HOWARD WEISS, plf-ap, v. MARILYN WEISS, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal