MacAllister v. MacAllister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacAllister v. MacAllister

275 A.D.2d 1015, 713 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9619

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1015 (MacAllister v. MacAllister) 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

MacAllister v. MacAllister, 275 A.D.2d 1015, 713 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery in this action for divorce. Four days before her wedding, plaintiff signed a prenuptial agreement waiving her rights to the interest of defendant in his family’s business. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to financial information on the appreciated value of defendant’s family business during the marriage. She further contends that the prenuptial agreement is ambiguous with re[1016]*1016spect to any appreciated interest in the business because the paragraph concerning future interests is “gibberish”. While we agree that the paragraph in question is not artfully drawn, we conclude that the agreement, “read as a whole,” resolves the ambiguity in that paragraph (Hudson-Port Ewen Assocs. v Chien Kuo, 78 NY2d 944, 945; see, Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566-567). Furthermore, plaintiff is chargeable with knowledge of the terms of the agreement, even if she claims not to have read it (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 550-551). Consequently, plaintiff waived all rights to equitable distribution of the interest of defendant in his family’s business, including any rights to the appreciated value. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, McCarthy, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery in this action for divorce. Four days before her wedding, plaintiff signed a prenuptial agreement waiving her rights to the interest of defendant in his family’s business. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to financial information on the appreciated value of defendant’s family business during the marriage. She further contends that the prenuptial agreement is ambiguous with re[1016]*1016spect to any appreciated interest in the business because the paragraph concerning future interests is “gibberish”. While we agree that the paragraph in question is not artfully drawn, we conclude that the agreement, “read as a whole,” resolves the ambiguity in that paragraph (Hudson-Port Ewen Assocs. v Chien Kuo, 78 NY2d 944, 945; see, Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566-567). Furthermore, plaintiff is chargeable with knowledge of the terms of the agreement, even if she claims not to have read it (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 550-551). Consequently, plaintiff waived all rights to equitable distribution of the interest of defendant in his family’s business, including any rights to the appreciated value. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, McCarthy, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1015, 713 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macallister-v-macallister-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack