Katz v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Katz

118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54486

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 626 (Katz v. Katz) 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

Katz v. Katz, 118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered August 7, 1984, which denied her motion to compel the defendant husband to execute and deliver a deed to his [627]*627interest in the former marital residence to her upon her payment to him of 25% of the value of the net equity of the parties in the residence.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The existence of directly contradictory provisions in the separation agreement between the parties gives rise to an ambiguity (see, Steckler v Steckler, 78 AD2d 818), which may be resolved under the parol evidence rule through consideration of extrinsic evidence (67 Wall St. Co. v Franklin Natl. Bank, 37 NY2d 245). On the record before it, especially the transcript of the tape recordings of the parties’ negotiations, Special Term was justified in concluding that the parties intended that in the event of a purchase of the marital residence by the wife, the husband would be entitled to his entire 50% share of the net equity of the parties in the residence rather than 25% as proposed by the wife. The conclusory allegations of the wife’s counsel set forth to discredit the evidence submitted by the husband are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 NY2d 260, 264). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered August 7, 1984, which denied her motion to compel the defendant husband to execute and deliver a deed to his [627]*627interest in the former marital residence to her upon her payment to him of 25% of the value of the net equity of the parties in the residence.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The existence of directly contradictory provisions in the separation agreement between the parties gives rise to an ambiguity (see, Steckler v Steckler, 78 AD2d 818), which may be resolved under the parol evidence rule through consideration of extrinsic evidence (67 Wall St. Co. v Franklin Natl. Bank, 37 NY2d 245). On the record before it, especially the transcript of the tape recordings of the parties’ negotiations, Special Term was justified in concluding that the parties intended that in the event of a purchase of the marital residence by the wife, the husband would be entitled to his entire 50% share of the net equity of the parties in the residence rather than 25% as proposed by the wife. The conclusory allegations of the wife’s counsel set forth to discredit the evidence submitted by the husband are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 NY2d 260, 264). Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 626, 499 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-katz-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack