| Rowley v Amrhein |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10500 [46 AD3d 489] |
| December 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Susan Rowley, Appellant, v Mark J. Amrhein,Respondent. |
—[*1] Mark Amrhein, respondent pro se.
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 judgmentdeclaring that the parties' antenuptial agreement is invalid and granted defendant's cross motionfor a judgment declaring that the agreement is valid, and order, same court and Justice, enteredMarch 29, 2007, which denied plaintiff's motion for pendente lite relief, without prejudice to afurther motion based on her surviving rights under the antenuptial agreement, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
The antenuptial agreement is valid under both Ohio and New York law, notwithstanding itslack of an acknowledgment (see generally Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—NewJersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219, 223 [1993]). As required under Ohio law, theagreement was "entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching," it recitedthe property owned by each of the parties, and its "terms do not promote or encourage divorce orprofiteering by divorce" (Fletcher v Fletcher, 68 Ohio St 3d 464, 466, 628 NE2d 1343,1345-1346 [1994]). Because the agreement was entered into prior to the effective date of NewYork's Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3), it is not invalidated by the absence ofexecution formalities contained in that provision (Bloomfield v Bloomfield, 97 NY2d188, 194 [2001]).
Plaintiff contends that even if the agreement is valid, it is unconscionable. However, nothingin the agreement shocks the conscience (see generally Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63,71 [1977]).
Plaintiff's contention that the court erred in denying her pendente lite relief ignores the factthat she and defendant entered into a stipulation to resolve her pendente lite requests. Further, thecourt explicitly permitted plaintiff to submit a further motion.[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.