Costanza v. Costanza

—Order unan*1045imously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in directing him to purchase plaintiffs interest in the former marital residence. We agree. In November 1988, pursuant to the parties’ ante-nuptial agreement, plaintiff conveyed her interest in the former marital residence to defendant by quitclaim deed in exchange for a release of her obligations on a $100,000 demand note and on $100,000 in mortgage debt. Contrary to the determination of the court, that conveyance was valid and…