Gower v. Gower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gower v. Gower

240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6815

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

DecidedJune 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 632 (Gower v. Gower) 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

Gower v. Gower, 240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated June 14, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover money that the defendant allegedly failed to pay pursuant to a 1968 separation agreement. The defendant alleged that the payments made by him complied with the terms of a subsequent oral modification whereby the defendant was to pay her $75 each month if she agreed not to seek any money under the 1968 separation agreement. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The clause in the separation agreement expressly prohibiting its modification or waiver except by a properly signed writing was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Jacobson v Jacobson, 231 AD2d 494). The defendant’s payments to the plaintiff were not unequivocally referrable to the alleged oral agreement so as to waive the prohibition against oral modification, since those payments did not conform to the terms of the alleged oral agreement (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assocs., 42 NY2d 338; Can-Am Dev. Corp. v Meldor Dev. Corp., 214 AD2d 695; Weissman v Weissman, 173 AD2d 609).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated June 14, 1996, which granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover money that the defendant allegedly failed to pay pursuant to a 1968 separation agreement. The defendant alleged that the payments made by him complied with the terms of a subsequent oral modification whereby the defendant was to pay her $75 each month if she agreed not to seek any money under the 1968 separation agreement. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The clause in the separation agreement expressly prohibiting its modification or waiver except by a properly signed writing was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Jacobson v Jacobson, 231 AD2d 494). The defendant’s payments to the plaintiff were not unequivocally referrable to the alleged oral agreement so as to waive the prohibition against oral modification, since those payments did not conform to the terms of the alleged oral agreement (see, Rose v Spa Realty Assocs., 42 NY2d 338; Can-Am Dev. Corp. v Meldor Dev. Corp., 214 AD2d 695; Weissman v Weissman, 173 AD2d 609).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gower-v-gower-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack