In Matisoff v Dobi, 90 NY2d 127, 681 N.E.2d 376, 659 N.Y.S.2d 209 (1997), the Court of Appeals held invalid a matrimonial agreement which had been acknowledged before a notary but the form of acknowledgment utilized was not the more recent one enacted and required RPL 309-a, effective September 1, 1999. The Court rejected the contention that the agreement could be saved by the sworn admissions of the parties at trial that they had duly executed the document. Hence there appears to be a rule, in the Court of Appeals and the Third and Fourth Departments, that strict compliance with the formalities laid down by the legislature in Domestic Relations Law, 236 (B)(3) is a con-dition precedent to the enforcement of matrimonial agreements. However, "Matisoff made no mention of the interplay between CPLR 2104, which authorizes in-court stipula-tions, and DRL 236, Part B, subdivision 3, requiring marital agreements to be written, signed and acknowledged" (McKinneys Consolidated Laws of New York, Domestic Relations Law, 236, Part B, subdi-vision 3, C236B:18, at 369 [former Professor, now Justice Alan Sheinkman]). The Court discussed "the form required to entitle a deed to be recorded" (Domestic Relations Law 170 [6]). In this regard, the Court noted that: "proper acknowledgment or proof is an essential prerequisite to recording a deed in the office of the county clerk (see, Real Property Law 291). Such acknowledgment or proof, moreover, must meet various specifications. The Real Property Law dictates who may make an acknowledgment or proof (see, Real Property Law 292); before whom such acknowledgment or proof may be made (see, Real Property Law 298, 299); that an officer taking an acknowledgment must 'know[] or [have] satisfactory evidence, that the person making it is the person described in and who executed such instrument' (Real Property Law 303; see also, Real Property Law 304 [concerning proof by subscribing wit-ness]); that the person taking the acknowledgment or proof must attach a certificate of acknowledgment (see, Real Property Law 306); and the contents of that certificate (see, id.)." (Id., at 132-133) The Court of Appeals briefly addressed the issue of subsequent acknowledgments when it stated that "Do-mestic Relations Law 236 (B) (3) and the Real Property Law do not specify when the requisite acknowledgment must be made. It is therefore unclear whether acknowledgment must be contemporaneous with the signing of the agreement. "While this Court has affirmed determinations allowing parties to provide the requisite acknowledgment under similar statutory requirements at a later date, we have never directly addressed the question whether and under what circumstances the absence of acknowledgment can be cured." In Matisoff, the parties had not provided the court with any written acknowledgment of their postnuptial agreement. The Court rejected defendant's argument that the parties' admissions in open court as to the authenticity of their signatures should constitute proper acknowledgment, holding that "an unacknowledged agreement is invalid and unenforceable in a matrimonial action" (Id. at 136).