Decisions of Interest

The Supreme Court erred in finding that an ex-husband was not guilty of contempt and had substantially complied with the provision in the parties' postnuptial agreement. The agreement required him to obtain a life insurance policy designating his ex-wife as an “irrevocable beneficiary.” Because a policy naming her simply as “beneficiary” is not substantially equivalent to the policy required by the agreement, and the alteration prejudiced the wife's position by making it possible for the ex-husband to cancel the policy without her permission, he should have been found guilty of contempt. Sutton v. Sutton, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2083 (2d Dept. 3/20/12) (Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng, Sgroi, JJ.).