You are here: / / In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did...

In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did Not Apply

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that a stipulation/postnuptial agreement, which was not signed in open court, was not invalidated by Domestic Relations Law 236, the Second Department explained:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly determined that the postnuptial agreement was valid and that Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3) does not compel a different result. “An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded” (Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][3]). A written agreement between parties made before or during a marriage which does not meet the formalities of Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3) is not enforceable … . However, Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3) “applies only to agreements entered into outside the context of a pending judicial proceeding”… . Moreover, “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside” … . Thus, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered” (CPLR 2104…).

Here, the record established that the parties relied on the duly executed stipulation of settlement, which was denominated as the postnuptial agreement, as a means of resolving the respondent’s prior divorce action. It is undisputed that the postnuptial agreement was executed while the respondent’s action was pending before the Supreme Court … . … Accordingly, the postnuptial agreement was valid, as it “was executed in the context of a pending divorce proceeding, and was subject to judicial oversight, even though it was not signed in open court” … . Rio v Rio, 1013 NY Slip Op 07023, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THE SIGNATURES WERE WITNESSED AFTER THE DEADLINE; THE SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
City Administrative Code Provision Requiring a Building Owner to Maintain and Be Responsible for the Safe Condition of a Building Is Not Specific Enough to Form the Basis of Negligence Cause of Action
THE APPELLANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ENTITLING HER TO A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Administrative Review of a Rent Overcharge Petition Should Have Been Granted;... Abuse Not Demonstrated; Conflicting Expert Testimony