Angel v. O'Neill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Angel v. O'Neill

49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 119

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 430 (Angel v. O'Neill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angel v. O'Neill, 49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the hearing court’s finding, largely one of credibility, that the notary signature under the jurat purporting to certify defendant’s acknowledgment of the subject agreement is a forgery (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). Such evidence includes the notary’s testimony that the subject signature is not hers, and the obvious differences between the subject signature and the same notary’s admittedly genuine signature under the jurat certifying plaintiffs acknowledgment. Absent a proper written acknowledgment, the parties’ postnuptial agreement is unenforceable (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127, 137-138 [1997]). It does not avail plaintiff to argue that defendant ratified the agreement through word or conduct (see id. at 131, 133-134). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the hearing court’s finding, largely one of credibility, that the notary signature under the jurat purporting to certify defendant’s acknowledgment of the subject agreement is a forgery (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). Such evidence includes the notary’s testimony that the subject signature is not hers, and the obvious differences between the subject signature and the same notary’s admittedly genuine signature under the jurat certifying plaintiffs acknowledgment. Absent a proper written acknowledgment, the parties’ postnuptial agreement is unenforceable (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127, 137-138 [1997]). It does not avail plaintiff to argue that defendant ratified the agreement through word or conduct (see id. at 131, 133-134). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-v-oneill-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack