From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued March 6, 2000.

April 20, 2000.

In an action to annul a marriage, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 24, 1998, as, after a nonjury trial, annulled the marriage.

Ballon Stoll Bader Nadler, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard Turyn of counsel), for appellant.

Cooper, Bamundo, Hecht Longworth, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steven Bamundo and Ronald P. Labeck of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to annul his marriage to the defendant alleging, inter alia, that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented her prior marital status and her age, and concealed the fact that she had a 17-year-old child. Domestic Relations Law § 7[4] provides that a marriage is void if consent to such marriage was procured by fraud. The fraud must be material to the marriage (see, Sophia v. Von Linde, 22 A.D.2d 34, affd 16 N.Y.2d 785 ). Fraud is material where it is proven that the plaintiff relied on premarital representations and, had such representations not been made, he or she would not have consented to the marriage (see,Brazil v. Brazil, 235 A.D.2d 611 ). The fraud must be of a nature that a reasonably prudent person would be deceived (see, Brazil v. Brazil, supra).

The evidence at trial demonstrated that the fraudulent representations made by the defendant were material and that the plaintiff would not have consented to the marriage had the representations not been made (see, Brazil v. Brazil, supra). Therefore, the court did not err in granting the annulment.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Murray v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Murray v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:Gerard Murray, respondent, v. Dyandria Murray, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 164

Citing Cases

S.K. v. F.K.

In Kober v. Kober, 16 NY2d 191, the Court of Appeals granted an annulment where the defendant failed to…

Lazar v. Lazar

Furthermore, the fraud must be of such a nature that an ordinarily prudent person would have been deceived…