Majority
Orders, entered May 3, 1962, denying motion to dismiss complaint as insufficient and denying defendant’s motion to vacate an order of arrest, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the first cause of action in the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Had the husband misrepresented the value of his own assets, the first cause of action would have been insufficient (Weintraub v. Weintraub, 302 N. Y. 104 ). That he misrepresented the value of certain of his wife’s assets creates, in our opinion, no legally significant difference. The agreement provided for support and maintenance and was substantially more than a property settlement. It included a provision looking to divorce, and the Nevada court which granted the divorce less than two months after the date of the agreement ratified and approved that document, made it part of the divorce decree, and ordered the parties to comply with its terms and provisions. To sustain the cause of action would not only substitute judicial
Cases cited
- Weintraub v. Weintraub 302 N. Y. 104 p. 800
- Johnson v. Johnson 206 N. Y. 561 p. 801
- Rehill v. Rehill 306 N. Y. 126 at 135 p. 801
- Schacht v. Schacht 295 N. Y. 439 p. 801
- Ross v. Preston 292 N. Y. 433 at 437 p. 801
- Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp. 250 N. Y. 304 p. 801