DiSalvo v. Graff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiSalvo v. Graff

227 A.D.2d 298, 642 N.Y.S.2d 883

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

DecidedMay 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 298 (DiSalvo v. Graff) 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

DiSalvo v. Graff, 227 A.D.2d 298, 642 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered July 27, 1995, which, in an action to set aside an agreement settling the parties’ divorce action, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the challenged agreement, wherein the parties agreed to relinquish their respective claims to, among other things, the other’s stock holdings is prima facie valid and that plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence of fraud or overreaching to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a business executive who was in a hurry for a divorce and over the three years preceding the agreement had earned considerably more than defendant, approximately $80,000 a year at the time the agreement was signed in 1991, was represented by competent, independent counsel, who drafted the agreement, and specifically acknowledged that she had made her own independent investigation of defendant’s business affairs and was waiving further disclosure. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered July 27, 1995, which, in an action to set aside an agreement settling the parties’ divorce action, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that the challenged agreement, wherein the parties agreed to relinquish their respective claims to, among other things, the other’s stock holdings is prima facie valid and that plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence of fraud or overreaching to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a business executive who was in a hurry for a divorce and over the three years preceding the agreement had earned considerably more than defendant, approximately $80,000 a year at the time the agreement was signed in 1991, was represented by competent, independent counsel, who drafted the agreement, and specifically acknowledged that she had made her own independent investigation of defendant’s business affairs and was waiving further disclosure. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 298, 642 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disalvo-v-graff-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack