| Smith v Smith |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05171 [129 AD3d 934] |
| June 17, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Carolyn Smith, Respondent, v Lee Smith,Appellant. |
Schwartz & Ciesinski, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Maria Schwartz of counsel), forappellant.
Ialenti & Macari, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Marc J. Ialenti of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Leonard D. Steinman,J.), dated June 6, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant'smotion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss, in effect, the causes of action seekingto set aside the parties' prenuptial agreement, and granted that branch of the plaintiff'scross motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment on those causes of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In general, New York has a "strong public policy favoring individuals ordering anddeciding their own interests through contractual agreements" (Matter of Greiff,92 NY2d 341, 344 [1998]). "However, this right is not and has never been withoutlimitation" (Kessler vKessler, 33 AD3d 42, 45 [2006]). "An agreement between spouses orprospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showingthat it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestlyunfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse" (Bibeau v Sudick, 122 AD3d652, 654-655 [2014]; see Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72-73 [1977];Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis,103 AD3d 766, 767 [2013]). Here, the plaintiff established her prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the terms of theprenuptial agreement were manifestly unfair given the nature and magnitude of the rightsshe waived and in light of the vast disparity in the parties' net worth (see Petracca v Petracca, 101AD3d 695, 698 [2012]). The circumstances surrounding the signing of theagreement support a finding that the unfairness of the agreement was the product of thedefendant's overreaching, including that the agreement was presented to the plaintiff twodays before the wedding as "take-it or leave-it" when she had already moved in with herchildren to the marital home. In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue offact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's cross motion anddenied the defendant's motion. Eng, P.J., Hall, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.