| Friedman v Roman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06662 [65 AD3d 1187] |
| September 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Sheila Cohen Friedman, Appellant, v Juan Roman, AlsoKnown as John Roman, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew Wigler, Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, in which the defendant counterclaimed for adeclaration that the parties' marital agreement was invalid and unenforceable, the plaintiffappeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Cohen, J.), dated December 31, 2007, as denied her motion, in effect, for summaryjudgment declaring that the parties' marital agreement is valid and enforceable, granted thatbranch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that themarital agreement is invalid and unenforceable, and declared that the marital agreement "shall beof no further force and effect."
Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provisionthereof granting that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgmentdeclaring that the subject agreement is invalid and unenforceable and substituting therefor aprovision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof declaring thatthe marital agreement "shall be of no further force and effect;" as so modified, the order andjudgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter isremitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the complaint.
"Generally, courts will enforce a choice-of-law clause so long as the chosen law bears areasonable relationship to the parties or the transaction" (Welsbach Elec. Corp. v MasTec N. Am., Inc., 7 NY3d 624, 629[2006]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the New Jersey choice-of-lawprovision contained in the parties' marital agreement will be enforced. Accordingly, the mattermust be analyzed pursuant to New Jersey law.
However, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court erred in concluding, as amatter of law, that the parties' marital agreement was an invalid and unenforceable"mid-marriage" agreement (Pacelli v Pacelli, 319 NJ Super 185, 725 A2d 56 [1999]).Although the subject agreement was executed shortly after the parties' marriage, the recordreveals triable issues of fact as to whether it constituted a valid and enforceable "premaritalagreement" (NJ Stat Ann § 37:2-38; see [*2]Harringtonv Harrington, 281 NJ Super 39, 656 A2d 456 [1995]). Accordingly, the matter must beremitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the complaint. Rivera,J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.