This is a case being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Audrey Feinberg and the defendant in the case is Herbert Feinberg. The action that is before the court was instituted by the plaintiff who is seeking to set aside a consensual migratory divorce that was obtained in a court located in the Dominican Republic as well as the separation agreement.
Plaintiff Argument
The plaintiff has alleged that in order to induce her into a separation agreement and execute a power of attorney to authorize counsel to appear on her behalf in a divorce action in the Dominican Republic court, the defendant falsely represented his financial worth. The attorney for the plaintiff requested the tax returns of the defendant and three years of tax returns were provided. However, the plaintiff argues that the defendant concealed the existence of negotiations for the sale of the family’s wine business, Monsieur Henri Company, in which the defendant has a third interest.
A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff further argues that the separation agreement and power of attorney document were signed by her on the 20th of March and the divorce was obtained by the defendant on the 24th of March. She argues that in order to perpetrate this fraud he had the negotiations accelerated. She states that he delayed the sale of the business to take place three weeks after the divorce was finalized.
The plaintiff states that she discovered the sale of the business by a report in the Wall Street Journal that her counsel read to her and she commenced this action thereafter.
Defendant Argument
The defendant argues that both parties were represented by competent counsel during the entire separation and divorce proceedings. He states that he responded truthfully to all of the questions that were asked by the council for the plaintiff and that he released his tax records for the past three years to show his financial worth. A New York Custody Lawyer said he further states that the plaintiff was fully aware of his interest in his family’s business and that there were negotiations taking place for it to be sold.
The defendant denies the allegations that he rushed the plaintiff into making the contract while the negotiations were taking place. He further denies that he delayed the sale of the company until after the separation agreement and power of attorney were signed.
Court Discussion and Decision
The court has reviewed the facts of the case and found that under the laws of the Dominican Republic the decree is unassailable. A Queens Family Lawyer said he alleged fraud, if established by the plaintiff warrants a collateral attack on the judgment that was made in this action. If the divorce decree is vitiated by reason of fraud, the separation agreement will be found to be invalid as well. The separation agreement, the power of attorney, and the divorce decree may all fall under attack if the alleged fraud is found to be true.
A Queens Custody Lawyer said the court finds that further inquiry into this matter is necessary and for this reason the motion and cross motion of the case are denied. The issues of fact that remain in the case will be heard during trial set for a later date.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offer free consultations on your first visit to our offices. We will discuss your legal issue with you and help you determine a course of action for the matter. We have offices conveniently located throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. Contact us today to set up an appointment to discuss your case.