In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia

New York Court of Appeals

In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia

43 N.E.3d 361, 26 N.Y.3d 1031, 22 N.Y.S.3d 151

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 2015

DocketNo.173

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 43 N.E.3d 361 (In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Anthony Frank Fizzinoglia, 43 N.E.3d 361, 26 N.Y.3d 1031, 22 N.Y.S.3d 151 (N.Y. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this administration proceeding pursuant to Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1001, Surrogate’s Court properly denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing object-ant’s claim against the estate. Petitioner did not make a prima facie showing that the prenuptial agreement she and the decedent signed was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it omitted a statement of the parties’ assets and liabilities. Notably, petitioner testified that she was aware when the agreement was executed that the statement was absent, and that, at the time, the decedent’s finances “didn’t matter” to her. Moreover, the record does not contain any indication that the decedent “attempted to conceal or misrepresent the nature or extent of his assets” (Panossian v Panossian, 172 AD2d 811, 813 [2d Dept 1991]).

At trial, Surrogate’s Court properly granted objectant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4401. Petitioner failed to present prima facie proof that “a fact-based, particularized inequality” (Matter of Greiff, 92 NY2d 341, 346 [1998]) existed between the decedent and herself at the time of the execution of the prenuptial agreement, or meet her resulting burden of proof that the agreement was the product of fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct by the decedent (see generally Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit in the circumstances of this case.

*1033 Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this administration proceeding pursuant to Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 1001, Surrogate’s Court properly denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing object-ant’s claim against the estate. Petitioner did not make a prima facie showing that the prenuptial agreement she and the decedent signed was invalid and unenforceable insofar as it omitted a statement of the parties’ assets and liabilities. Notably, petitioner testified that she was aware when the agreement was executed that the statement was absent, and that, at the time, the decedent’s finances “didn’t matter” to her. Moreover, the record does not contain any indication that the decedent “attempted to conceal or misrepresent the nature or extent of his assets” (Panossian v Panossian, 172 AD2d 811, 813 [2d Dept 1991]).

At trial, Surrogate’s Court properly granted objectant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4401. Petitioner failed to present prima facie proof that “a fact-based, particularized inequality” (Matter of Greiff, 92 NY2d 341, 346 [1998]) existed between the decedent and herself at the time of the execution of the prenuptial agreement, or meet her resulting burden of proof that the agreement was the product of fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct by the decedent (see generally Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 71-73 [1977]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit in the circumstances of this case.

*1033 Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E.3d 361, 26 N.Y.3d 1031, 22 N.Y.S.3d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-anthony-frank-fizzinoglia-ny-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack