WONG v. WONG (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Schlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on November 10, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties were married in 1996, and in June 2008, plaintiff wife commenced the underlying divorce action.  In March 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve all rights and obligations arising out of the marital relationship.  The agreement provided the wife with, among other things, maintenance for three years, equitable distribution of marital assets, and counsel fees.

Shortly after entry of the judgment of divorce, the wife brought an action in Taiwan, asking for an investigation into, and seeking equitable distribution of, defendant husband's assets there.  She asserted that she had discovered that the husband had assets in Taiwan that were undisclosed on his net worth statements.  The court dismissed the action, having concluded that the issue was properly brought before the courts of New York. In 2018, prior to the Taiwan court rendering its decision, the wife commenced this action alleging that, having uncovered that the husband had assets in Taiwan that were unreported on his net worth statement, he had fraudulently induced her into entering the stipulation of settlement.

The motion court correctly dismissed the wife's complaint.  The record establishes that prior to settlement the wife was aware of the husband's bank accounts in Taiwan, as they had been itemized on his net worth statement.  Even assuming the amounts listed by the husband were inaccurate, it cannot be said that the husband failed to disclose the existence of the accounts, and nothing prevented the wife from discovery on that point during the settlement agreement negotiations (see Kojovic v. Goldman, 35 A.D.3d 65, 68, 823 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 804, 831 N.Y.S.2d 106, 863 N.E.2d 111 [2007]).  Moreover, the real properties in Taiwan that were not disclosed on the net worth statement were not only held to be nonmarital property by the Taiwan court, but admitted as such by the wife.  They were, accordingly, specifically excluded from equitable distribution by the terms of the agreement.  As for the stock accounts, according to the husband's affidavit, he was unaware of certain stock accounts that were set up in his name in Taiwan by his parents, a fact corroborated in the affidavit of his sister.  This unrebutted lack of knowledge of the accounts refutes the wife's allegations of any intent to defraud (see Mahan v. Mahan, 29 A.D.3d 471, 472, 817 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept. 2006] [“[A]sserted nondisclosure of financial information is not the equivalent of fraud”]).  Accordingly, the wife cannot assert that she reasonably relied on the husband's silence or any misrepresentation at the time of settlement (see Kojovic v. Goldman, 35 A.D.3d 65, 823 N.Y.S.2d 35).

We also note that the wife had already ratified the agreement by accepting substantial benefits thereunder before seeking rescission and reformation of the stipulation nearly three years after the divorce (see Depalma v. Depalma, 193 A.D.3d 449, 450, 141 N.Y.S.3d 694 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1039, 154 N.Y.S.3d 564, 176 N.E.3d 301 [2021]).  This further precludes the wife from asserting a fraud claim (see Chalos v. Chalos, 128 A.D.2d 498, 499, 512 N.Y.S.2d 426 [2d Dept. 1987], lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 609, 522 N.Y.S.2d 109, 516 N.E.2d 1222 [1987];  Mahan v. Mahan, 29 A.D.3d at 472, 817 N.Y.S.2d 216;  Markovitz v. Markovitz, 29 A.D.3d 460, 461, 816 N.Y.S.2d 419 [1st Dept. 2006]).

We have considered the wife's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.