Darrin v. Darrin

Citation838 N.Y.S.2d 678,40 A.D.3d 1391,2007 NY Slip Op 04558
Decision Date31 May 2007
Docket Number501892.
PartiesSUSAN C. DARRIN, Appellant, v. DAVID DARRIN, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered November 28, 2006 in Albany County, which granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment finding the prenuptial agreement executed by the parties to be valid and enforceable.

CARDONA, P.J.

On July 20, 1987, five days before their wedding ceremony, plaintiff and defendant entered into a prenuptial agreement wherein, among other things, defendant disclosed his financial status and acknowledged his future potential interest in a substantial family trust. In accordance with certain provisions of the agreement, defendant was to make fixed monthly payments to plaintiff which would increase upon their tenth wedding anniversary and, in the event of divorce, a cash settlement based upon the length of the marriage would be paid to plaintiff. Given these monthly payments and cash settlement, plaintiff waived, among other things, all rights to spousal support, maintenance and equitable distribution in the event the parties divorced. Thereafter, a July 25, 1987 wedding ceremony was held, however, due to a problem with the filing of the marriage certificate, the parties were not officially married until a subsequent ceremony in November 1987.

In April 2005, plaintiff commenced this action seeking a divorce as well as, among other things, maintenance and equitable distribution. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment declaring the prenuptial agreement to be valid and enforceable. In opposition, plaintiff alleged that the agreement was procured through fraud, duress and overreaching. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion, resulting in this appeal.

We find no error in granting defendant partial summary judgment upholding the validity and enforceability of the parties' prenuptial agreement. It is well settled that a prenuptial agreement is accorded the same presumption of legality as any other contract (see Matter of Garbade, 221 AD2d 844, 845 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 803 [1996]; Brassey v Brassey, 154 AD2d 293, 294-295 [1989]) and the validity of such an agreement is presumed unless the party opposing the agreement comes forward with evidence demonstrating "fraud, duress, or overreaching, or that the agreement or stipulation is ... unconscionable" (Korngold v Korngold, 26 AD3d 358, 358 [2006], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 861 [2006]; see Costanza v Costanza, 199 AD2d 988, 989 [1993]). "`[I]n the absence of proof of facts from which concealment or imposition may reasonably be inferred, fraud will not be presumed.... Such a presumption [of fraud] must have as its basis evidence of overreaching—the concealment of facts, misrepresentation or some other form of deception'" (Matter of Sunshine, 51 AD2d 326, 328 [1976], affd 40 NY2d 875 [1976], quoting Matter of Phillips, 293 NY 483, 491 [1944]). Furthermore, where the spouse opposing the validity of the agreement fails to raise any triable issue of fact, the proponent of the agreement is entitled to summary judgment (see Tremont v Tremont, 35 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2006]).

Even accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, a review of the record herein fails to demonstrate any triable issues of fact with respect to fraud, duress or overreaching in connection with the execution of the prenuptial agreement. With respect to plaintiff's allegation of duress, the substantial financial disparity between the parties was fully disclosed at the time the agreement was executed. Moreover, despite the fact that plaintiff was unemployed at the time the agreement was executed and allegedly dependent on defendant's support, there is no evidence that defendant used his wealth as leverage to coerce p...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Trbovich v. Trbovich
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 d5 Novembro d5 2014
    ...demonstrating ‘fraud, duress, or overreaching, or that the agreement or stipulation is ... unconscionable’ ” (Darrin v. Darrin, 40 A.D.3d 1391, 1392–1393, 838 N.Y.S.2d 678, lv. dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 914, 844 N.Y.S.2d 168, 875 N.E.2d 886 ). “As with all contracts, prenuptial agreements are cons......
  • Carter v. Fairchild-Carter
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 22 d4 Outubro d4 2020
    ...744, 745–746, 68 N.Y.S.3d 493 [2018], lv dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1000, 101 N.Y.S.3d 730, 125 N.E.3d 146 [2019] ; Darrin v. Darrin, 40 A.D.3d 1391, 1392–1393, 838 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2007], lv dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 914, 844 N.Y.S.2d 168, 875 N.E.2d 886 [2007] ). To establish fraud, there must be evidence......
  • Carter v. Fairchild-Carter
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 d4 Março d4 2018
    ...( id. at 846, 633 N.Y.S.2d 878 ; accord Matter of Bordell, 150 A.D.3d 1446, 1448, 55 N.Y.S.3d 762 [2017] ; see Darrin v. Darrin, 40 A.D.3d 1391, 1393, 838 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2007], lv dismissed 9 N.Y.3d 914, 844 N.Y.S.2d 168, 875 N.E.2d 886 [2007] ). I further note that the case on which the maj......
  • Herr v. Herr
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 d4 Julho d4 2012
    ...will be enforced according to its terms absent proof of fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability ( see Darrin v. Darrin, 40 A.D.3d 1391, 1392–1393, 838 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2007],lv. dismissed9 N.Y.3d 914, 844 N.Y.S.2d 168, 875 N.E.2d 886 [2007];Pulver v. Pulver, 40 A.D.3d 1315, 1317, 837 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT