Kany v. Kany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kany v. Kany

2017 NY Slip Op 2158, 148 A.D.3d 584, 50 N.Y.S.3d 337

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2017

Docket3502 303079/15

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2158 (Kany v. Kany) 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

Kany v. Kany, 2017 NY Slip Op 2158, 148 A.D.3d 584, 50 N.Y.S.3d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and/or for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and for counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s fraud claims are conclusively refuted by the plain terms of the parties’ 1995 written settlement agreement, which was referenced by, and attached as an exhibit to, the complaint. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff waived any and all right and claim to “any participation or interest that [defendant] may now or in the future have in any retirement plan.” Thus, she assumed the risk that at the time the agreement was executed defendant had an interest in a retirement plan of which she was not aware. Moreover, plaintiff “specifically acknowledged that she had made her own independent investigation of defendant’s business affairs and was waiving further disclosure” (DiSalvo v Graff, 227 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 1996]; and see Kojovic v Goldman, 35 AD3d 65, 68-69 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

The allegation that the supplemental retirement benefits were fraudulently concealed from plaintiff is also flatly refuted by the emails and written correspondence submitted on defendant’s motion, many by plaintiff herself. The emails and written correspondence may be considered documentary evidence, because they were submitted to show that defendant’s supplemental retirement assets were disclosed, and they are “essentially undeniable” (Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC v Marshall-Alan Assoc., Inc., 120 AD3d 431, 433 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Since, at the very least, the disclosures in defendant’s net worth statement and in the benefits booklet issued by his employer put plaintiff on inquiry notice that defendant was entitled to supplemental retirement benefits, the complaint is time-barred (see DeLuca v DeLuca, 48 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 213 [8]).

Defendant is entitled to counsel fees under the agreement.

*585 We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskow-itz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and/or for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and for counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s fraud claims are conclusively refuted by the plain terms of the parties’ 1995 written settlement agreement, which was referenced by, and attached as an exhibit to, the complaint. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff waived any and all right and claim to “any participation or interest that [defendant] may now or in the future have in any retirement plan.” Thus, she assumed the risk that at the time the agreement was executed defendant had an interest in a retirement plan of which she was not aware. Moreover, plaintiff “specifically acknowledged that she had made her own independent investigation of defendant’s business affairs and was waiving further disclosure” (DiSalvo v Graff, 227 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 1996]; and see Kojovic v Goldman, 35 AD3d 65, 68-69 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

The allegation that the supplemental retirement benefits were fraudulently concealed from plaintiff is also flatly refuted by the emails and written correspondence submitted on defendant’s motion, many by plaintiff herself. The emails and written correspondence may be considered documentary evidence, because they were submitted to show that defendant’s supplemental retirement assets were disclosed, and they are “essentially undeniable” (Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC v Marshall-Alan Assoc., Inc., 120 AD3d 431, 433 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Since, at the very least, the disclosures in defendant’s net worth statement and in the benefits booklet issued by his employer put plaintiff on inquiry notice that defendant was entitled to supplemental retirement benefits, the complaint is time-barred (see DeLuca v DeLuca, 48 AD3d 341 [1st Dept 2008]; CPLR 213 [8]).

Defendant is entitled to counsel fees under the agreement.

*585 We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskow-itz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2158, 148 A.D.3d 584, 50 N.Y.S.3d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kany-v-kany-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack