From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DiSalvo v. Graff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1996
227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

dismissing fraud claim where wife contended that the husband had failed to disclose the value of his interest in an asset known to her, and settlement agreement specifically acknowledged that wife had "made her own independent investigation of [the husband's] business affairs and was waiving further disclosure."

Summary of this case from Harding v. Naseman
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

May 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).

The IAS Court correctly held that the challenged agreement, wherein the parties agreed to relinquish their respective claims to, among other things, the other's stock holdings is prima facie valid and that plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence of fraud or overreaching to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, a business executive who was in a hurry for a divorce and over the three years preceding the agreement had earned considerably more than defendant, approximately $80,000 a year at the time the agreement was signed in 1991, was represented by competent, independent counsel, who drafted the agreement, and specifically acknowledged that she had made her own independent investigation of defendant's business affairs and was waiving further disclosure.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Summaries of

DiSalvo v. Graff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1996
227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

dismissing fraud claim where wife contended that the husband had failed to disclose the value of his interest in an asset known to her, and settlement agreement specifically acknowledged that wife had "made her own independent investigation of [the husband's] business affairs and was waiving further disclosure."

Summary of this case from Harding v. Naseman

In DiSalvo v Graff (227 AD2d 298), this Court held that a party may not challenge the validity of a settlement agreement based on a claim that she undervalued assets which, the record showed, were disclosed by her former spouse and known to her at the time.

Summary of this case from Kojovic v. Goldman

In DiSalvo, where the allegations are substantially similar to those here, the motion court found the former wife was aware, at the time of the settlement of the divorce action, that her husband was the founder and 50% shareholder of a privately held company. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the wife in DiSalvo kept the couple's valuable shares of a publicly traded company while the husband retained his 50% interest in the closely held company.

Summary of this case from Kojovic v. Goldman
Case details for

DiSalvo v. Graff

Case Details

Full title:LISA M. DiSALVO, Appellant, v. MARK G. GRAFF, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 23, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

Smith v. Smith

Furthermore, the general presumption of validity of a separation agreement is especially true where the…

Sweeney v. Sweeney

The stipulation of settlement states "in entering this Agreement, the [plaintiff] acknowledges that he has in…

9 Citing Cases