The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number [redacted by court] were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION In this matrimonial action, the court must decide whether a plaintiff spouse, who alleges that the defendant spouse engaged in domestic violence against her, resulting in police intervention and plaintiff having to go the hospital, and who filed for divorce shortly thereafter, has any remedy when: (1) the defendant spouse secretly removed all of their marital assets from their joint accounts after the incident and prior to the wife filing for divorce, (2) these actions deprived the wife of all marital assets to which she would have been entitled after the divorce, (3) as the parties’ prenuptial agreement stated that each spouse would receive half of only those assets titled in both spouses’ names as of the date of commencement of the divorce action; and (4) any asset in only one of the spouse’s names at the date of commencement becomes the separate property of that titled spouse pursuant to the prenuptial agreement, effectively leaving the wife herein with no assets from the marriage’s joint accounts. In this matrimonial action, defendant husband J.K. (“Defendant”, “Husband”) filed the instant pre-answer motion for an order: (a) Pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), dismissing the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Verified Complaint, dated November 10, 2021 (annexed hereto as Exhibit A) (the “Amended Complaint”); (b) In accordance with the terms of the parties’ Prenuptial Agreement, dated August 18, 2000 (Exhibit B), awarding Defendant the counsel fees he incurred in connection with this motion; and (c) Awarding Defendant such other, further and different relief as to the Court seems just and proper. The parties married on [redacted] 2000, having executed a prenuptial agreement (the “Agreement”) one month before, on August 18, 2000. Plaintiff wife V.K. (“Plaintiff”, “Wife”) commenced this action on [redacted] 2021. On [redacted] 2021, Wife filed a Verified Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) that included, in addition to the originally pled cause of action for divorce, five other causes of action, based upon tort and quasi contract theories. The new causes of action include claims for (1) conversion, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) promissory estoppel (the “Non-Divorce Counts”). The Amended Complaint also seeks to enforce the Prenuptial Agreement. Each Non-Divorce Count was predicated upon Husband’s purported transfer of funds from “the parties’ joint bank account(s) to an account or accounts titled solely in [Husband's] name” between the [date of the alleged domestic violence incident] and the date of commencement less than two months later. Complaint 14. The Prenuptial Agreement sets forth a “title controls” regime for the parties’ property, such that distribution is controlled by title to property as it is held on the date of commencement. Under the Agreement, marital property is defined in pertinent part as property held on the date of commencement, that is (a) titled in joint names; and (b) designated as marital property in the Prenuptial Agreement or in a signed and acknowledged writing (of which there are none). Agreement., p. 2, 2(a). Pursuant to the Agreement, both parties to the marriage waived any claim for a distributive award, and each party was required to accept one-half of the marital property as defined therein. The gist of the non-divorce causes of action is that on or about September 2, 2021 and continuing for a short period thereafter, Husband secretly transferred nearly all of the marital assets, then believed to be approximately four million dollars, to his own name. Wife alleges that “[o]n various dates” following [the incident date], Husband transferred “assets” from the “parties’ joint bank account(s)” to “an account or accounts titled solely” in Husband’s name, that the total value exceeds “$4 million,” that the Husband did so with the intent to “impair” the Wife’s rights. Wife asserts that there was no “legitimate business purpose” for Husband’s actions and that Husband has been asked to return the assets, but has not done so. Complaint
14-17. Wife’s first cause of action seeks a divorce. Id. at
