Leighton v. Leighton

Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.,

concur in part and dissent in part in a memorandum by Nardelli, J., as follows: Initially, I agree with the majority that the 1992 postnuptial agreement was invalid due to the absence of a contemporaneous acknowledgment of plaintiffs signature, but I respectfully dissent to the extent that I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that an issue of

*266fact exists concerning the validity of the 1986 prenuptial agreement, and would grant plaintiff husband’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second, third, fourth and additional fourth counterclaims challenging the…