Opinion
June 6, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Loewy, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that Michele Martin is equitably estopped from seeking to redate the judgment of divorce nunc pro tunc, due to her knowing participation in a bigamous marriage. One may not profit by his or her own wrong (see, Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506).
We additionally find that Rose Martin submitted sufficient evidence with regard to her claim that Edward Martin fraudulently concealed his assets to warrant the reopening of the trial in order to accept further testimony regarding Edward Martin's interest in certain properties in Florida. Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.