Campbell v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 04 August 2022
• Docket Number: 563,CA 21-01114
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 1050,173 N.Y.S.3d 372
• Parties: Keith A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Julie A. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 1050
173 N.Y.S.3d 372

Keith A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Julie A. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

563
CA 21-01114

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: August 4, 2022

TABANO & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, LATHAM (MARIA C. TEBANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES W. ENGELBRECHT, ROME, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

208 A.D.3d 1050

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the counterclaim in the second amended answer is granted insofar as it seeks a determination that the August 31, 2017 postnuptial agreement is valid and enforceable as a matter of law.

Memorandum: The parties were married in June 1989 and entered into a postnuptial agreement on August 31, 2017 (2017 agreement). They had entered into two prior postnuptial agreements in 2010 and 2013, which, like the 2017 agreement, set forth the financial separation of their assets and obligations in the event of divorce. Unlike the 2017 agreement, however, the prior agreements were never properly acknowledged pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3). In July 2019, plaintiff commenced this action for divorce. Defendant served a second amended answer with a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, to incorporate but not merge into the judgment of divorce the 2017 agreement. In reply, plaintiff asserted affirmative defenses alleging that the 2017 agreement should be found null and void or set aside on the grounds that, inter alia, he signed the

208 A.D.3d 1051

2017 agreement under duress and that the 2017 agreement was unconscionable. Thereafter, defendant moved for summary judgment seeking, inter alia, an order dismissing plaintiff's affirmative defenses and determining that the 2017 agreement is valid and enforceable. Following a hearing, Supreme Court concluded that, based on the totality of the circumstances, including plaintiff's allegations of emotional abuse in connection with the execution of the 2017 agreement, the 2017 agreement was unconscionable and manifestly unfair. Thus, the court determined that the 2017 agreement was invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law. Defendant appeals, and we reverse.

173 N.Y.S.3d 375

In general, postnuptial agreements are subject to ordinary principles of contract law (see Levine v. Levine , 56 N.Y.2d 42, 47, 451 N.Y.S.2d 26, 436 N.E.2d 476 [1982] ; O'Malley v. O'Malley , 41...