Wong v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wong v. Wong

86 A.D.3d 439, 926 N.Y.2d 288

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 86 A.D.3d 439 (Wong v. Wong) 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

Wong v. Wong, 86 A.D.3d 439, 926 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[440]*440Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the fully executed prenuptial agreement at issue was ever delivered to him, thus such agreement was neither valid nor binding (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; Ross v Ross, 233 App Div 626, 637 [1931], affd 262 NY 381 [1933]; 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc., 46 NY2d 506 [1979]; Alsaedi v Ninth Ave. Realty, 2 AD3d 233 [2003]).

Moreover, defendant failed to meet his burden to prove the terms of any valid prenuptial agreement between the parties because no document purporting to be a true and accurate copy of the prenuptial agreement’s terms was entered into evidence (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 645 [1994]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

[440]*440Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the fully executed prenuptial agreement at issue was ever delivered to him, thus such agreement was neither valid nor binding (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; Ross v Ross, 233 App Div 626, 637 [1931], affd 262 NY 381 [1933]; 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander’s, Inc., 46 NY2d 506 [1979]; Alsaedi v Ninth Ave. Realty, 2 AD3d 233 [2003]).

Moreover, defendant failed to meet his burden to prove the terms of any valid prenuptial agreement between the parties because no document purporting to be a true and accurate copy of the prenuptial agreement’s terms was entered into evidence (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 645 [1994]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.3d 439, 926 N.Y.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wong-v-wong-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack