midpage
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.

In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia

New York Court of Appeals
Nov 18, 2015
No.173
Versions:26 N.Y.3d 1031
43 N.E.3d 361
22 N.Y.S.3d 151
2015 NY Slip Op 08371

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains (Sondra M. Miller, Frank W. Streng and Robert H. Rosh of counsel), for appellant.

Daniels, Porco and Lusardi, LLP, Carmel (Robert C. Lusardi of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this administration proceeding pursuant to Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1001, Surrogate’s Court properly denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing objectant’s claim against the estate. Petitioner did not make a prima facie showing that the prenuptial agreement she and the decedent signed was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it omitted a statement of the parties’ assets and liabilities. Notably, petitioner testified that she was aware when the agreement was executed that the statement was absent, and that, at the time, the decedent’s finances “didn’t matter” to her. Moreover, the record does not contain any indication that the decedent “attempted to conceal or misrepresent the nature or extent of his assets” (Panossian v Panossian, 172 AD2d 811, 813 [2d Dept 1991]).

At trial, Surrogate’s Court properly granted objectant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4401. Petitioner failed to present prima facie proof that “a fact-based, particularized inequality” (Matter of Greiff, 92 NY2d 341, 346 [1998]) existed between the decedent and herself at the time of the execution of the prenuptial agreement, or meet her resulting burden of proof that the agreement was the product of fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct by the decedent (see generally Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit in the circumstances of this case.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case Details

Case Name: In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 18, 2015
Citations: 26 N.Y.3d 1031; 43 N.E.3d 361; 22 N.Y.S.3d 151; 2015 NY Slip Op 08371; No.173
Docket Number: No.173
Court Abbreviation: N.Y.
Log In