DWYER v. DWYER (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered March 1, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant wife's cross-motion to set an asset valuation cutoff date of August 10, 2023, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the valuation date is set as August 1, 2013, the date plaintiff husband filed for divorce.

The parties do not dispute the validity and enforceability of the premarital agreement, which was entered into while each party was represented by counsel and there are no intimations of fraud, duress, or overreaching.  “[A] duly executed prenuptial agreement is given the same presumption of legality as any other contract” (Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 138 A.D.3d 30, 36, 25 N.Y.S.3d 90 [1st Dept. 2016], lv dismissed 27 N.Y.3d 1125, 36 N.Y.S.3d 880, 57 N.E.3d 73 [2016]), and if the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties should be determined from what is expressed in writing (see Van Kipnis v. Van Kipnis, 11 N.Y.3d 573, 577, 872 N.Y.S.2d 426, 900 N.E.2d 977 [2008]).  Thus, the premarital agreement's unambiguous terms, which specifically set a trigger event for determination of the parties’ interest in appreciation in value of premarital property as of the date of the parties’ separation or pending divorce, must be observed.  Although this will likely result in a greater financial disparity than if the trigger date was the date set by the motion court, “any such inequality is simply not a basis for vitiating their freely-negotiated agreement” (Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 138 A.D.3d at 42, 25 N.Y.S.3d 90;  see also Barocas v. Barocas, 94 A.D.3d 551, 551, 942 N.Y.S.2d 491 [1st Dept. 2012], appeal dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 993, 951 N.Y.S.2d 468, 975 N.E.2d 914 [2012]).  Accordingly, the operative date is the date plaintiff husband filed for divorce, or August 1, 2013.

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