Summary
declining to invalidate a District of Columbia postnuptial for noncompliance with NY D.R.L. § 236(B) because "the law of the District of Columbia controls," thus, D.R.L. § 236(B) is not applicable
Summary of this case from J.B. v. M.G.Opinion
April 26, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed defendant's first counterclaim and fourth affirmative defense alleging violations of New York's General Obligations Law § 5-311 and Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3), respectively since the postnuptial agreement in issue specifically designated, and the parties agree that the law of the District of Columbia controls. The court also properly dismissed defendant's second counterclaim sounding in fraud, his allegations thereof being conclusory (Hercules Co. v Shama Rest. Corp., 613 A.2d 916 [DC Cir 1992]).
Nor did the court err in sustaining the parties' postnuptial agreement since the record reveals the agreement was fair both at the time of its execution and at the present, and defendant has failed to sufficiently allege that the agreement was not entered into voluntarily or after full disclosure of assets (Burtoff v Burtoff, 418 A.2d 1085 [DC Cir 1980]).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.