From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abram v. Joanne Cheung Sui Mei

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2017
148 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-28-2017

Edward ABRAM, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOANNE CHEUNG SUI MEI, Defendant–Respondent.

Law Offices of Peter M. Nissman, New York (Peter M. Nissman of counsel), for appellant.


Law Offices of Peter M. Nissman, New York (Peter M. Nissman of counsel), for appellant.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered January 20, 2016, which, inter alia, upheld the parties' prenuptial agreement upon inquest, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff husband's efforts to meet his "very high" burden of challenging the parties' prenuptial agreement fail (Anonymous v. Anonymous, 123 A.D.3d 581, 582, 999 N.Y.S.2d 386 [1st Dept.2014] ). The plain language of the parties' agreement reveals that the husband's assets to be protected were substantial and that the wife received the maintenance award in question as a quid pro quo. Where, as here, a prenuptial agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution are "fair," there is no further inquiry (Levine v. Levine, 56 N.Y.2d 42, 47, 451 N.Y.S.2d 26, 436 N.E.2d 476 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Furthermore, the husband's efforts to establish that the agreement was the product of duress are not persuasive (see Barocas v. Barocas, 94 A.D.3d 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] ).

We have considered the husband's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Abram v. Joanne Cheung Sui Mei

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2017
148 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Abram v. Joanne Cheung Sui Mei

Case Details

Full title:Edward ABRAM, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOANNE CHEUNG SUI MEI…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 28, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 599

Citing Cases

Rapp v. Rapp

There is a strong public policy favoring individuals ordering and deciding their own interests through…

Fichter v. Fichter

An agreement is unconscionable if it is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would…