Mutlu v Mutlu (2019 NY Slip Op 08567) Mutlu v Mutlu 2019 NY Slip Op 08567 Decided on November 27, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on November 27, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL SHERI S. ROMAN HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ. 2016-12658 (Index No. 30675/13) [*1]Kristy Mutlu, respondent, vIsmail Mutlu, appellant. Tini Law P.C., Copiague, NY (Francesco P. Tini of counsel), for appellant. DECISION & ORDER In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John Iliou, J.), entered October 11, 2016. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision and order of the same court dated April 14, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granting the plaintiff's motion to enforce a postnuptial agreement dated February 29, 2008, and for a money judgment in the sum of $4,500, (1) incorporated, but did not merge, the postnuptial agreement into the judgment of divorce, (2) failed to make an equitable distribution award to the defendant, and (3) awarded the plaintiff a money judgment in the sum of $4,500. ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, the plaintiff's motion to enforce the postnuptial agreement dated February 29, 2008, and for a money judgment in the sum of $4,500 is denied, the decision and order dated April 14, 2011, is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings and a new determination relating to equitable distribution of the parties' property, and the entry of an amended judgment of divorce. The parties were married on December 23, 2007, and have one child together. On November 18, 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, equitable distribution of the marital property pursuant to a postnuptial agreement allegedly executed by the parties on February 29, 2008. A nonjury trial was held on the ancillary economic issues attendant to the divorce. The plaintiff sought to move a copy of the postnuptial agreement into evidence, claiming that she did not have the original and did not know its whereabouts. The defendant objected and contended that he did not sign the document and that none of the signatures on the document were his. The court granted the plaintiff's application and admitted a copy of the postnuptial agreement into evidence . The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643; Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v Kingston Oil Supply Corp., 134 AD3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals