From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rupert v. Rupert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 5, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting financial disclosure in the matrimonial action before the invalidity of the antenuptial agreement was established (see, DeSantis v DeSantis, 182 A.D.2d 1107; Cruey v Cruey, 159 A.D.2d 241, 241-242; Hoffman v Hoffman, 100 A.D.2d 704). Unlike the showing made in Gilsten v Gilsten ( 137 A.D.2d 411), here plaintiff failed to show that financial disclosure was necessary to support her cause of action to declare the invalidity of the agreement. Similarly, the court erred in ordering an accounting of expenditures of defendant's assets.


Summaries of

Rupert v. Rupert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Rupert v. Rupert

Case Details

Full title:DOLORES RUPERT, Respondent, v. PHILIP D. RUPERT, JR., Appellant. (Appeal…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

Rupert v. Rupert

Although the antenuptial agreement provides that it "may only be modified or amended by a written…

Moore v. Moore

The Fourth Department has adopted this requirement for a "legitimate factual predicate" before allowing…