(DOWNLOAD) "Ruth C. Pacchiana v. Guido Pacchiana" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Ruth C. Pacchiana v. Guido Pacchiana
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 09, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
In an action to, inter alia, rescind an antenuptial agreement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), entered July 13, 1982, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of the Statute of Limitations. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, cross motion granted to the extent that so much of plaintiffs complaint as seeks rescission on the ground of duress is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. On November 21, 1975, the night before their marriage, the plaintiff bride-to-be signed an antenuptial agreement at the request of the defendant in which both parties agreed to waive their statutory rights of election. In April, 1982, plaintiff commenced this action in which she sought, inter alia, to void the agreement. Plaintiff thereupon moved for the relief demanded in her complaint alleging that she had been coerced into signing the agreement and that she never acknowledged her signature in accordance with EPTL 5-1.1. After serving his answer, defendant responded with a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing her complaint as time barred. Special Term denied the motion and cross motion. Defendant has appealed from so much of the order of Special Term as denied his cross motion. We reverse that order insofar as appealed from. An antenuptial agreement is, of course, a contract (Matter of Lemle, 30 A.D.2d 785; 10 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 1289A). If a partys manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by duress or undue influence, the contract is voidable by that party (Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 955; Restatement, Contracts 2d, §Â§ 175, 177) and the right to rescind accrues upon the execution of the contract (Van Dussen-Storto Motor Inn v Rochester Tel. Corp., 63 A.D.2d 244). We therefore reject plaintiffs contention that an antenuptial agreement is executory until the death of either spouse and that no cause of action to void it can accrue until then. While continuing duress or undue influence may toll a Statute of Limitations (Kamenitsky v Corcoran, 97 Misc 384, revd on other grounds 177 App Div 605; 54 CJS, Limitations of Actions, § 197; Ann., 121 ALR 1294), the instant suit is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations relative to equity actions, since the asserted coercion ceased upon the execution of the agreement (see CPLR 213, subd 1; Greene v Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86). Moreover, even if the complaint can be construed as alleging fraud by the husband in misrepresenting his assets, it is clear that the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraud within a short time after the marriage. Thus, even a claim of fraud would be untimely since the action was not commenced within six years after commission of the fraud or within two years after its discovery (CPLR 213, subd 8; 203, subd [f]). Nevertheless, if the antenuptial agreement was not "acknowledged or proved [94 A.D.2d 721 Page 722]
 "Ruth C. Pacchiana v. Guido Pacchiana" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}