AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN THE MATTER OF HENRY K. NEIDICH, DECEASED. DANIEL M. NEIDICH, ET AL., respondents; FLORENCE NEIDICH, appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The objectant sought to validate her right of election regarding the decedent's estate, asserting that her alleged waiver of her right of election in an antenuptial agreement was void by reason of fraud, undue influence, and overreaching. The law is settled that antenuptial agreements are contracts (see, Rubin v. Rubin, 275 A.D.2d 404; Pacchiana v. Pacchiana, 94 A.D.2d 721; Matter of Lemle, 30 A.D.2d 785). Actions for rescission are governed by a six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213). Actions based upon fraud also have a six-year Statute of Limitations, running from the time the fraud is committed, or a two-year Statute of Limitations, running from the time the fraud reasonably could have been discovered (see, CPLR 213). In the absence of continuing duress or undue influence, an action to rescind an antenuptial agreement accrues and the Statute of Limitations begins to run once the agreement is executed (see, Rubin v. Rubin, supra; Pacchiana v. Pacchiana, supra). The Surrogate properly held that the objectant's claim was untimely, since it was not raised within six years after the alleged fraud was committed, or within two years of when it reasonably could have been discovered (see, CPLR 213; 203[g]; Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 271 A.D.2d 427; Pommer v. Trustco Bank, 183 A.D.2d 976). Significantly, the objectant failed to explain her failure to discover the alleged fraud at the time she executed the antenuptial agreement by reading the document which she signed (see, Pommer v. Trustco Bank, supra). Furthermore, the Statute of Limitations is not tolled during a marriage (see, Scheuer v. Scheuer, 308 N.Y. 447; Dunning v. Dunning, 300 N.Y. 341; Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, supra). Thus, the Surrogate correctly granted summary judgment to the petitioners on the ground that the objectant's claims were barred by the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations.

The objectant's remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF NEIDICH
(Jan 28, 2002)