Kojovic v. Goldman

823 N.Y.S.2d 35

N.Y. App. Div.

2006

Check Treatment

Lora Kojovic, Respondent, v Neal Goldman, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

October 19, 2006

[823 NYS2d 35]

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Clair, Greifer LLP, New York City (Bernard E. Clair and Jad Greifer of counsel), for appellant.

Goldweber, Lauriello and Epstein L.L.P., New York City (Josephine Lauriello and Elyse S. Goldweber of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SULLIVAN, J.

In this action to set aside, on the basis of fraud and overreaching, the parties’ agreement in settlement of the husband‘s divorce action, the husband appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

The facts are relatively straightforward. The parties were married in May 1998 and divorced in 2004. At the time of the marriage, plaintiff wife was 22 years of age and had just graduated from college. Defendant husband was 27, with an MBA from Columbia University. There are no children of the marriage, throughout which the husband was the chief executive officer of and a minority shareholder (7% to 8%) in a closely held corporation, Capital IQ, Inc., an information technology company. In the first two years of the marriage the wife worked as a securities analyst at Morgan Stanley and later pursued a career in acting, from which she derived no income. As the record shows, the parties enjoyed a prosperous lifestyle during the marriage.

The wife alleges that in May 2004 the husband announced that he wanted a divorce. He then commenced a divorce action in Dutchess County, where the couple maintained a second home. The wife thereupon commenced her own action for divorce on May 14, 2004 in New York County. The parties then exchanged financial information including lists of assets and statements of net worth. The husband included in his disclosures his minority interest in Capital IQ. It is undisputed that the parties affirmatively decided not to conduct further discovery. Instead, on August 5, 2004, less than three months after both actions were commenced, they settled all issues incident to the divorce pursuant to a comprehensive settlement agreement that they negotiated with the assistance of their attorneys.¹ Pursuant to the settlement, the wife received $1.15 million in cash, rehabilitative spousal support of $350,000 payable over four years, which she continues to receive, and certain other considerations. The husband retained, among other things, his minority shareholder interest in Capital IQ.