Djavaheri-Saatchi v. Djavaheri-Saatchi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Djavaheri-Saatchi v. Djavaheri-Saatchi

236 A.D.2d 583, 654 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 583 (Djavaheri-Saatchi v. Djavaheri-Saatchi) 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

Djavaheri-Saatchi v. Djavaheri-Saatchi, 236 A.D.2d 583, 654 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered December 7, 1995, which, after a trial on the issue of the validity of a prenuptial agreement, determined that with the exception of child support, the agreement governed the economic issues in the action.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the parties’ prenuptial agreement was time-barred (see, Anonymous v Anonymous, 233 AD2d 350; Pacchiana v Pacchiana, 94 AD2d 721; see also, Pommer v Trustco Bank, 183 AD2d 976). Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered December 7, 1995, which, after a trial on the issue of the validity of a prenuptial agreement, determined that with the exception of child support, the agreement governed the economic issues in the action.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the parties’ prenuptial agreement was time-barred (see, Anonymous v Anonymous, 233 AD2d 350; Pacchiana v Pacchiana, 94 AD2d 721; see also, Pommer v Trustco Bank, 183 AD2d 976). Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 583, 654 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djavaheri-saatchi-v-djavaheri-saatchi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack