Decisions of Interest

Too Late to Seek Award Owed

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed the dismissal of a former wife's claim for recovery of damages due to her ex-husband's alleged breach of their divorce judgment, as the distributive award made to the wife upon divorce was not a money judgment subject to a 20-year statute of limitations, and her suit was thus time-barred. Woronoff v. Woronoff, — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2010 WL 550592 (2d Dept. 2/16/10) (Covello, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Lott, JJ.).

The parties were divorced by judgment in 1988. As part of that judgment the husband was ordered to pay the wife $87,500 for her share of his business. In 1990, the parties entered into an agreement modifying the payment plan, but that agreement was not reduced to a court order. The wife never entered her distributive award as a money judgment, nor did she seek to enforce collection of it until 2007, when she obtained a clerk's judgment against her ex-husband. He, however, successfully moved to vacate the clerk's judgment, then moved to recover damages from his ex-wife for wrongful procurement of the clerk's judgment. She counterclaimed to assert her rights, inter alia, to payment in full of the $87,500 awarded to her in the divorce judgment for her share of the business. Although it had been nearly 20 years since that judgment, the wife claimed that her award was a “money judgment” subject to a 20-year statute of limitations, and her claim was therefore timely. Supreme Court dismissed the wife's counterclaim.

The Second Department upheld the dismissal, finding that the wife's claim was subject to the six-year statute of limitations set out in Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 213(1) and (2). Because she failed to reduce her distributive award to a money judgment, then asserted her claim well outside that limitations period, Supreme Court acted correctly in dismissing the counterclaim as time-barred.

Wife Gets Annulment Because Husband Told Material Lies

A woman whose husband failed to disclose his previous marriages and engagements early in their relationship, and who lied to her about his job, income and religious practices, was granted an annulment based on Domestic Relations Law ' 7(4), under which a marriage contract can be voided if one party's consent was obtained through “reason of force, duress or fraud.“ Khan v. Khan, 201830-09 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 3/10/10) (Diamond, J.).

The parties were married in June 2008 after a whirlwind courtship that began just months earlier with a speed-dating introduction. The wife had been looking for a practicing Muslim, which her fianc' claimed to be. He also claimed to be a network engineer/business owner making more than $100,000 per year. Two days before they got their marriage license, the husband, a Pakistani citizen, admitted he had been married in 1999 to a woman to whom he had paid $10,000 so that he could get a green card. Later, but still before the wedding, she learned that her future husband had been married to one other woman and had been engaged to three others. The wife went through with the marriage despite learning this information, as she thought they could overcome these issues. However, she testified that she would not have dated and become engaged to her husband had she known about the previous marriage from the outset. Justice Arthur M. Diamond of Nassau County Supreme Court found this history of serial engagements and marriages was “circumstantial evidence of the defendant's desire to obtain citizenship by marrying a US citizen, including his marriage to the plaintiff.“

The court also found credible the wife's testimony that her husband lied about his occupation, income and religious practices at various times leading up to and following their marriage. In addition, evidence was presented that the husband was in fact carrying on a homosexual relationship with the couple's housemate, and that he did not engage in sexual relations with his wife. Justice Diamond, citing to Domestic Relations Law ' 7(4), granted the annulment. Justice Diamond concluded that a fraud had been perpetrated and that “[t]he sequence of events indicative of the lies and fraud promulgated by defendant culminated in plaintiff's discovery that her husband misrepresented by omission his sexual orientation in order to attain a marriage.“

Promise to Take Care of Girlfriend Unenforceable

An unmarried man's statements to his girlfriend that he would always support her were unenforceable because the couple were never married. Ericson v. Baron, 350065/09, N.Y.L.J. 3/26/10, p. 48 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty.) (Gessmer, J.).

A man allegedly made several promissory statements to his girlfriend, including, “I will always take care of you“ and “everything that we put in, we will enjoy together.“ When they broke up and the man refused to continue to support his girlfriend, she sought the imposition of a constructive trust in her favor. Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer declined the request, noting that New York's legislature has not imposed equitable distribution on unmarried couples. “Indeed,” wrote Justice Gesmer, “even if [the defendant] had made an explicit promise that, upon separation, [the plaintiff] would be entitled to 'equitable distribution' of their assets, it would be unenforceable, as it would be contrary to the long-standing law and policy in New York that unmarried partners are not entitled to the same property and financial rights upon termination of the relationship as married people.” The court was also unpersuaded by the plaintiff's contention that a constructive trust should be imposed because she had expended much time and energy in helping her partner to build his business and create a comfortable home. The court found that the plaintiff's argument failed because she had “not cited to any cases, and the court has not located any, in which an expenditure of time and energy, without more, was held to constitute a transfer sufficient to trigger the constructive trust doctrine.“

Too Late to Seek Award Owed

The Appellate Division, Second Department, has affirmed the dismissal of a former wife's claim for recovery of damages due to her ex-husband's alleged breach of their divorce judgment, as the distributive award made to the wife upon divorce was not a money judgment subject to a 20-year statute of limitations, and her suit was thus time-barred. Woronoff v. Woronoff, — N.Y.S.2d —-, 2010 WL 550592 (2d Dept. 2/16/10) (Covello, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Lott, JJ.).

The parties were divorced by judgment in 1988. As part of that judgment the husband was ordered to pay the wife $87,500 for her share of his business. In 1990, the parties entered into an agreement modifying the payment plan, but that agreement was not reduced to a court order. The wife never entered her distributive award as a money judgment, nor did she seek to enforce collection of it until 2007, when she obtained a clerk's judgment against her ex-husband. He, however, successfully moved to vacate the clerk's judgment, then moved to recover damages from his ex-wife for wrongful procurement of the clerk's judgment. She counterclaimed to assert her rights, inter alia, to payment in full of the $87,500 awarded to her in the divorce judgment for her share of the business. Although it had been nearly 20 years since that judgment, the wife claimed that her award was a “money judgment” subject to a 20-year statute of limitations, and her claim was therefore timely. Supreme Court dismissed the wife's counterclaim.

The Second Department upheld the dismissal, finding that the wife's claim was subject to the six-year statute of limitations set out in Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 213(1) and (2). Because she failed to reduce her distributive award to a money judgment, then asserted her claim well outside that limitations period, Supreme Court acted correctly in dismissing the counterclaim as time-barred.

Wife Gets Annulment Because Husband Told Material Lies

A woman whose husband failed to disclose his previous marriages and engagements early in their relationship, and who lied to her about his job, income and religious practices, was granted an annulment based on Domestic Relations Law ' 7(4), under which a marriage contract can be voided if one party's consent was obtained through “reason of force, duress or fraud.“ Khan v. Khan, 201830-09 (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, 3/10/10) (Diamond, J.).

The parties were married in June 2008 after a whirlwind courtship that began just months earlier with a speed-dating introduction. The wife had been looking for a practicing Muslim, which her fianc' claimed to be. He also claimed to be a network engineer/business owner making more than $100,000 per year. Two days before they got their marriage license, the husband, a Pakistani citizen, admitted he had been married in 1999 to a woman to whom he had paid $10,000 so that he could get a green card. Later, but still before the wedding, she learned that her future husband had been married to one other woman and had been engaged to three others. The wife went through with the marriage despite learning this information, as she thought they could overcome these issues. However, she testified that she would not have dated and become engaged to her husband had she known about the previous marriage from the outset. Justice Arthur M. Diamond of Nassau County Supreme Court found this history of serial engagements and marriages was “circumstantial evidence of the defendant's desire to obtain citizenship by marrying a US citizen, including his marriage to the plaintiff.“

The court also found credible the wife's testimony that her husband lied about his occupation, income and religious practices at various times leading up to and following their marriage. In addition, evidence was presented that the husband was in fact carrying on a homosexual relationship with the couple's housemate, and that he did not engage in sexual relations with his wife. Justice Diamond, citing to Domestic Relations Law ' 7(4), granted the annulment. Justice Diamond concluded that a fraud had been perpetrated and that “[t]he sequence of events indicative of the lies and fraud promulgated by defendant culminated in plaintiff's discovery that her husband misrepresented by omission his sexual orientation in order to attain a marriage.“

Promise to Take Care of Girlfriend Unenforceable

An unmarried man's statements to his girlfriend that he would always support her were unenforceable because the couple were never married. Ericson v. Baron, 350065/09, N.Y.L.J. 3/26/10, p. 48 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty.) (Gessmer, J.).

A man allegedly made several promissory statements to his girlfriend, including, “I will always take care of you“ and “everything that we put in, we will enjoy together.“ When they broke up and the man refused to continue to support his girlfriend, she sought the imposition of a constructive trust in her favor. Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer declined the request, noting that New York's legislature has not imposed equitable distribution on unmarried couples. “Indeed,” wrote Justice Gesmer, “even if [the defendant] had made an explicit promise that, upon separation, [the plaintiff] would be entitled to 'equitable distribution' of their assets, it would be unenforceable, as it would be contrary to the long-standing law and policy in New York that unmarried partners are not entitled to the same property and financial rights upon termination of the relationship as married people.” The court was also unpersuaded by the plaintiff's contention that a constructive trust should be imposed because she had expended much time and energy in helping her partner to build his business and create a comfortable home. The court found that the plaintiff's argument failed because she had “not cited to any cases, and the court has not located any, in which an expenditure of time and energy, without more, was held to constitute a transfer sufficient to trigger the constructive trust doctrine.“