Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ronald REISS, appellant, v. Stella REISS, respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), dated May 27, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate the parties' post-nuptial agreement, and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to enforce that agreement only to the extent of directing the parties to submit papers on the issue of counsel fees.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to enforce the post-nuptial agreement to the extent of directing the parties to submit papers on the issue of counsel fees is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
We dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to enforce the post-nuptial agreement only to the extent of directing the parties to submit papers on the issue of counsel fees. That portion of the order did not determine the cross motion and does not affect a substantial right; thus, it is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Matter of James, 5 A.D.3d 487, 488, 772 N.Y.S.2d 558), and leave to appeal has not been granted.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the parties' post-nuptial agreement. Viewing the challenged agreement in its entirety, and examining the totality of the circumstances in this case, we find that the agreement is not unconscionable (see Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 396 N.Y.S.2d 817, 365 N.E.2d 849; Chambers v. McIntyre, 5 A.D.3d 344, 772 N.Y.S.2d 530; Golfinopoulos v. Golfinopoulos, 144 A.D.2d 537, 538, 534 N.Y.S.2d 407; Juliani v. Juliani, 143 A.D.2d 72, 75, 531 N.Y.S.2d 322).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 26, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)