Schapiro v. Schapiro

204 A.D.2d 87, 612 N.Y.S.2d 6
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 87 (Schapiro v. Schapiro) 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
Schapiro v. Schapiro, 204 A.D.2d 87, 612 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered on May 4, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for an award of counsel fees for the defense of an appeal, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the award of counsel fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this matrimonial action, the motion court directed that the defendant husband pay the plaintiff wife’s counsel fees with respect to an appeal taken by the husband from an order granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint containing a cause of action seeking to rescind or reform the parties’ [88]*88prenuptial agreement on the ground of fraud. The motion court held that an award of counsel fees could be made pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 with respect to the appeal. We disagree. It is well settled that Domestic Relations Law § 237 does not provide for an award of counsel fees in actions to enforce or rescind prenuptial agreements (see, Lamborn v Lamborn, 56 AD2d 623). We are not persuaded by the motion court’s attempt to distinguish Lamborn on the grounds that it was decided before equitable distribution and that its holding is limited to actions to enforce rather than rescind prenuptial agreements. To the extent that the fifth cause of action in the verified amended complaint seeks rescission of the prenuptial agreement, it is a contract action rather than a matrimonial action (see, Ravel v Ravel, 161 AD2d 547, 550; Rubin v Rubin, 119 AD2d 152, 155-156, affd 69 NY2d 702). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Lombardi v. Lombardi
2018 NY Slip Op 5758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Hof v. Hof
131 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
S.B. v. W.A.
38 Misc. 3d 780 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Bradley v. Bradley
95 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Van Kipnis v. Van Kipnis
43 A.D.3d 71 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ventimiglia v. Ventimiglia
36 A.D.3d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kessler v. Kessler
33 A.D.3d 42 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Soiefer v. Soiefer
17 A.D.3d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 A.D.2d 87, 612 N.Y.S.2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schapiro-v-schapiro-nyappdiv-1994.