Rowley v. Amrhein
848 N.Y.S.2d 645
N.Y. App. Div.
2007
Check Treatment

Susan Rowley, Appellant, v Mark J. Amrhein, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

42 A.D.3d 489 | 848 N.Y.S.2d 645

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered February 23, 2007, which, in this divorce action, denied plaintiff‘s motion for a judgment declaring that the parties’ antenuptial agreement is invalid and granted defendant‘s cross motion for a judgment declaring that the agreement is valid, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 29, 2007, which denied plaintiff‘s motion for pendente lite relief, without prejudice to a further motion based on her surviving rights under the antenuptial agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The antenuptial agreement is valid under both Ohio and New York law, notwithstanding its lack of an acknowledgment (see generally ). As required under Ohio law, the agreement was “entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching,” it recited the property owned by each of the parties, and its “terms do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce” (). Because the agreement was entered into prior to the effective date of New York‘s Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3), it is not invalidated by the absence of execution formalities contained in that provision ().

Plaintiff contends that even if the agreement is valid, it is unconscionable. However, nothing in the agreement shocks the conscience (see generally ).

Plaintiff‘s contention that the court erred in denying her pendente lite relief ignores the fact that she and defendant entered into a stipulation to resolve her pendente lite requests. Further, the court explicitly permitted plaintiff to submit a further motion.

We have considered plaintiff‘s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.