From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berman v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 1995
217 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement which provided in relevant part that (1) the husband would convey his interest, inter alia, in three properties to the wife, (2) the parties mutually relinquished all further claims to the other's business and personal property interests, (3) both parties waived spousal support, and (4) because both parties were aware of each other's assets, further discovery was waived by both parties. The wife now seeks, inter alia, damages for fraudulent concealment and fraud in the inducement, claiming that at the time of the agreement, the husband concealed or undervalued certain assets. The Supreme Court granted the husband's motion to dismiss the wife's fraud causes of action, and we now affirm.

We find unpersuasive the wife's contention that she relied on the husband's voluntary statement of net worth in making the agreement, as the agreement provides that the parties voluntarily limited their discovery of each other's assets, and the record further indicates that the wife knew about at least one of the disputed properties ( cf., Torsiello v. Torsiello, 188 A.D.2d 523; Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Greenfield v. Greenfield 147 A.D.2d 440). Bracken, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Berman v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 1995
217 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Berman v. Berman

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA BERMAN, Appellant, v. MURRAY BERMAN, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 3, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 82

Citing Cases

Harding v. Naseman

Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, see, e.g., Merrill Lynch Co. v. Allegheny Energy,…

E.C. v. L.C.

This is permissible. See Berman v. Berman, 217 AD2d 531 (2d Dept. 1995). In all events, the failure to…