A New York appellate court has ordered a hearing to review a postnuptial agreement in a divorce case involving Yvette S. Zubli and Yosef Sakizadeh. This decision affects the way postnuptial agreements are scrutinized in divorce proceedings, particularly when one party claims inequity. The case, Zubli v. Sakizadeh (Docket No. 2023-04890), highlights the importance of fairness in marital agreements.
The court's ruling comes after Sakizadeh, the defendant, appealed a prior decision that denied his request to set aside the postnuptial agreement without a hearing. The appellate court found that the agreement may not have been fair and warranted further examination. This decision could have significant implications for future divorce cases involving postnuptial agreements.
Background
Yvette S. Zubli and Yosef Sakizadeh were married on October 23, 2012. In 2015, the couple entered into a postnuptial agreement that stated both parties would retain their separate property and any appreciation in value in the event of a divorce. Zubli had significant assets, including two businesses and real estate, acquired before the marriage, while Sakizadeh had no assets.
In May 2022, Zubli initiated divorce proceedings. In December 2022, Sakizadeh sought to set aside the postnuptial agreement, claiming it was unfair and that he was misled about its nature. The Supreme Court of Nassau County denied his motion without a hearing in May 2023, leading to the appeal.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York ruled on April 29, 2026, reversing the judgment of divorce that determined there were no assets subject to equitable distribution due to the postnuptial agreement. The court stated, "It cannot be said that the postnuptial agreement is fair on its face," indicating that the circumstances surrounding the agreement warranted further investigation.
The court also noted that Sakizadeh raised serious questions about the fairness of the agreement. He claimed he had limited English proficiency, that his attorney did not review the agreement with him, and that he believed he was signing a business agreement rather than a marital contract. The judges involved in the ruling were Betsy Barros, Barry E. Warhit, Carl J. Landicino, and Laurence L. Love.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for how postnuptial agreements are treated in divorce cases. The court's decision emphasizes that such agreements must be fair and equitable. If one party can demonstrate that they were misled or did not fully understand the agreement, the courts may intervene to set it aside.
The ruling also highlights the importance of ensuring that both parties in a marriage are adequately represented and understand the agreements they are entering into. This could lead to more scrutiny of postnuptial agreements in future divorce cases, especially where there are claims of inequity or lack of understanding.
What's Next
The case is now set to return to the Supreme Court of Nassau County for a hearing on Sakizadeh's motion to set aside the postnuptial agreement. This hearing will allow both parties to present evidence and arguments regarding the fairness of the agreement. The outcome of this hearing could significantly affect the distribution of assets in the divorce.