Jackson v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Jackson

181 A.D.2d 638, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5266

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1992·Published

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on February 21, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application to vacate respondent’s income execution, and denied respondent’s cross-petition for arrears and counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ separation agreement provides for three events that will reduce monthly maintenance and support payments [639] without limit and separately provides for three other events that will reduce such payments to a limit of $800 a month for each unemancipated child. The IAS court correctly construed the plain meaning of this agreement in declining to apply the $800 limit to the first set of events (see, Cunningham v Cunningham, 169 AD2d 451). Respondent may not avoid the unambiguous terms of the agreement " 'merely because it subsequently appears to have been a bad bargain’ ” (Barzin v Barzin, 158 AD2d 769, 770, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 834, quoting 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac |f 2104.05). We have reviewed respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on February 21, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application to vacate respondent’s income execution, and denied respondent’s cross-petition for arrears and counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ separation agreement provides for three events that will reduce monthly maintenance and support payments [639] without limit and separately provides for three other events that will reduce such payments to a limit of $800 a month for each unemancipated child. The IAS court correctly construed the plain meaning of this agreement in declining to apply the $800 limit to the first set of events (see, Cunningham v Cunningham, 169 AD2d 451). Respondent may not avoid the unambiguous terms of the agreement " 'merely because it subsequently appears to have been a bad bargain’ ” (Barzin v Barzin, 158 AD2d 769, 770, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 834, quoting 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac |f 2104.05). We have reviewed respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Jackson v. Jackson, 181 A.D.2d 638, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 638 (Jackson v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related