Mahadeo v. Mahadeo

• Decision Date: 14 April 2021
• Docket Number: 2019–07816,Index No. 1069/15,2019–11659
• Citation: 142 N.Y.S.3d 407 (Mem),193 A.D.3d 843
• Parties: Priya Rachel MAHADEO, respondent, v. Robby MAHADEO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

193 A.D.3d 843

142 N.Y.S.3d 407 (Mem)

Priya Rachel MAHADEO, respondent,

v.Robby MAHADEO, appellant.

2019–07816

2019–11659

Index No. 1069/15

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

Argued—December 15, 2020

April 14, 2021

Thomas Torto, New York, NY, for appellant.

Rayaaz N. Khan, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the children.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margaret P. McGowan, J.), dated May 13, 2019, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 19, 2019. The order dated May 13, 2019, granted the motion of the attorney for the children to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated August 4, 2018, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the parties' prenuptial agreement, and directed a new hearing on that branch of the plaintiff's motion. The order dated August 19, 2019, insofar as appealed from, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to the determination in the order dated May 13, 2019.

ORDERED that the order dated May 13, 2019, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion of the attorney for the children to vacate so much of the order dated August 4, 2018, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the parties' prenuptial agreement is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 19, 2019, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated May 13, 2019.

The parties were married on July 23, 2003, and have three children. The day before their marriage, they entered into a prenuptial agreement which provided, inter alia, that, in the event of termination of the marriage, each party waived the right to maintenance, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. In an order dated August 4, 2018, after a hearing, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the prenuptial agreement.

Thereafter, the attorney for the children (hereinafter the AFC) moved to vacate so much of the order dated August 4, 2018, as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the prenuptial agreement. The AFC contended that case law issued subsequent to the hearing on the validity of the prenuptial agreement held that he should have been permitted to participate in the hearing to represent the interests of the children. In an order dated May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the AFC's motion, and directed a new hearing on that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to set aside the prenuptial agreement.

Subsequently, the defendant moved, among other things, for leave to reargue his opposition to the AFC's motion. In an order dated August 19, 2019, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the defendant's motion...