Search for: "Galetta v. Galetta" Results 1 - 10 of 10
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2018, 6:20 am by Joel R. Brandes
The statement in D’Elia that “[i]t is uncontroverted that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was not properly acknowledged at the time that it was executed” (14 AD3d at 478) was not referring to a defective acknowledgment, but instead, to the absence of any acknowledgment,            In Galetta v Galetta, 21 N.Y.3d 186, 991 N.E.2d 684, 969 N.Y.S.2d 826 (2013) the parties executed a prenuptial… [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 7:22 am by John (Jack) Barnosky
” The Second Department affirmed the decision of the court below that the defect could be remedied, distinguishing the case from Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127 (1997) where the agreement had not been acknowledged at all and Galetta v Galetta, 21 NY3d 186 (2013) where the agreement was acknowledged but defective in the same respect as in this case, but the notary did not know the decedent and although he could describe his usual procedure, could not… [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
For her first affirmative defense and objection, Irene asserted that the prenuptial agreement was defective, invalid, and unenforceable pursuant to the 2013 New York Court of Appeals decision in Galetta v Galetta, 21 N.Y.3d 186, because the acknowledgments omitted language expressly stating that the notaries knew the signers or had ascertained, through some sort of proof, that the signers were the persons described as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(3). [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 11:28 am by Joel R. Brandes
In Galetta v Galletta, __NY3d__, 2013 WL 2338421 (2013) a matrimonial action, plaintiff Michelle Galetta sought a determination that a prenuptial agreement she and defendant Gary Galetta signed was invalid due to a defective acknowledgment. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
A v British Broadcasting Corporation, 22 and 23 January 2014 (Supreme Court) Ontulmus v Collett 5 and 6 February 2014 (Tugendhat J) NAB v Serco, 7 February 2014 (Bean J) [read post]