Brock v. Sitomer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brock v. Sitomer

212 A.D.2d 409, 622 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1367

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 409 (Brock v. Sitomer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brock v. Sitomer, 212 A.D.2d 409, 622 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 11, 1994 which, inter alia, denied that portion of plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, to the extent of granting that portion of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the fifth cause of action alleged in the complaint for attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, and the matter is remanded for a determination of the amount of fees payable, without costs.

Plaintiff was the "substantially successful party” and defendants’ argument that this action does not arise under the Separation Agreement is without merit. The complaint clearly seeks a declaration of plaintiffs rights under the child support provisions of the amended Separation Agreement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ divorce decree, and the August 20, 1993 agreement was executed in anticipation of the settlement of defendant Sitomer’s claims thereun[410]*410der. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the plain language of the amended Separation Agreement, which provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees to the substantially successful party (see, Haskin v Mendler, 184 AD2d 372, 373; Canick v Canick, 122 AD2d 767, 769). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 11, 1994 which, inter alia, denied that portion of plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, to the extent of granting that portion of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the fifth cause of action alleged in the complaint for attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, and the matter is remanded for a determination of the amount of fees payable, without costs.

Plaintiff was the "substantially successful party” and defendants’ argument that this action does not arise under the Separation Agreement is without merit. The complaint clearly seeks a declaration of plaintiffs rights under the child support provisions of the amended Separation Agreement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ divorce decree, and the August 20, 1993 agreement was executed in anticipation of the settlement of defendant Sitomer’s claims thereun[410]*410der. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the plain language of the amended Separation Agreement, which provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees to the substantially successful party (see, Haskin v Mendler, 184 AD2d 372, 373; Canick v Canick, 122 AD2d 767, 769). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 409, 622 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-sitomer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack