NYC Prenup Lawyer: Asset Freeze Order

The parties executed a valid prenuptial agreement pursuant to New York Domestic Relations Law § 236 B 3. The agreement clearly defined separate property, marital property, and distribution rights upon dissolution of marriage. The agreement also restricted unilateral transfer of significant assets during the pendency of a divorce proceeding. One spouse held title to two residential properties in Manhattan, although the agreement classified appreciation and defined income streams as subject to distribution.

After divorce litigation commenced in Supreme Court, New York County, evidence emerged that the titled spouse had initiated discussions to sell one property. Bank records showed movement of rental income to newly created accounts. The non titled spouse sought urgent legal protection to prevent asset dissipation before adjudication under Domestic Relations Law § 236 B 5.

Courts in New York treat a prenuptial agreement as a contract. The court evaluates execution formalities, voluntariness, disclosure, and unconscionability. When an agreement satisfies statutory requirements, the court enforces its terms according to ordinary contract principles. In this matter, the agreement had been duly acknowledged in the manner required for a deed, and neither fraud nor duress was alleged.

When there is a demonstrated risk that property may be transferred to frustrate enforcement of a judgment, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 6201 authorizes prejudgment attachment. A moving party must show a cause of action, probability of success on the merits, and risk of asset concealment or disposal. The remedy operates to preserve property pending final determination.

The application demonstrated that the prenuptial agreement granted the non titled spouse a contractual interest in defined portions of equity and income. The motion established likelihood of success based on clear contractual language. Documentary evidence showed recent listing discussions and unusual transfers of rental proceeds. The court determined that these facts satisfied CPLR § 6201 requirements.

The Supreme Court issued an order of attachment against the property and directed filing with the county clerk. The order prohibited sale, transfer, or encumbrance without court approval. This preserved the asset until final adjudication of equitable distribution rights under Domestic Relations Law § 236 B 5. The attachment ensured that enforcement of the prenuptial agreement would not be rendered ineffective by unilateral action.

A valid prenuptial agreement does not enforce itself. When a spouse attempts to circumvent contractual obligations, immediate litigation strategy is required. Courts have authority to issue temporary restraints, attachments, and other provisional remedies under CPLR Article 62. These tools protect the integrity of judicial proceedings and preserve distributable property.

Every prenuptial dispute requires careful review of statutory requirements, financial documentation, and procedural options. Counsel may seek equitable distribution orders, specific performance of contractual terms, or provisional remedies authorized by statute. Our firm evaluates each matter based on contractual language and factual risk factors. We are prepared to protect assets, enforce agreements, and guide clients through complex divorce litigation.