Herskovitz v. Herskovitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herskovitz v. Herskovitz

2016 NY Slip Op 8443, 145 A.D.3d 549, 43 N.Y.S.3d 333

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2016

Docket2471 303093/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8443 (Herskovitz v. Herskovitz) 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

Herskovitz v. Herskovitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 8443, 145 A.D.3d 549, 43 N.Y.S.3d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*550 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband Michael Herskovitz’s motion for summary judgment, specifically finding that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was determinative of all issues related to spousal maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This appeal is based on the faulty premise that the parties’' postnuptial agreement was “totally silent” on the issue of spousal maintenance. A plain reading of the agreement reveals that it was not silent on the issue at all, however, and clearly manifested the parties’ intent to settle all economic affairs between them, including maintenance, in the event of divorce. The agreement clearly stated that it was settling all maintenance issues, and it did not award any maintenance. The IAS court properly interpreted the contract “so as to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language employed” (Morlee Sales Corp. v Manufacturers Trust Co., 9 NY2d 16, 19 [1961]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

*550 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Ñervo, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband Michael Herskovitz’s motion for summary judgment, specifically finding that the parties’ postnuptial agreement was determinative of all issues related to spousal maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This appeal is based on the faulty premise that the parties’' postnuptial agreement was “totally silent” on the issue of spousal maintenance. A plain reading of the agreement reveals that it was not silent on the issue at all, however, and clearly manifested the parties’ intent to settle all economic affairs between them, including maintenance, in the event of divorce. The agreement clearly stated that it was settling all maintenance issues, and it did not award any maintenance. The IAS court properly interpreted the contract “so as to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language employed” (Morlee Sales Corp. v Manufacturers Trust Co., 9 NY2d 16, 19 [1961]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8443, 145 A.D.3d 549, 43 N.Y.S.3d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herskovitz-v-herskovitz-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack