Carl R. Meisel v Christine F. Meisel

Meisel v Meisel 2006 NY Slip Op 00561 [25 AD3d 518] January 31, 2006 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Carl R. Meisel, Respondent,
v
Christine F. Meisel, Appellant.

—[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2004, which, in an action for divorce, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found that the "Postnuptial Agreement," which provided for the division of the parties' assets in the event of separation and was negotiated with the assistance of separate and independent counsel, qualifies as a separation agreement for purposes of a conversion divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6). No issues of fact in that regard are raised by the circumstance that the parties did not separate until some seven months after the agreement was signed. Nor are any issues of fact raised as to the fairness of the agreement. We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.