Lourie v. Mishkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lourie v. Mishkin

279 A.D. 754, 108 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 754 (Lourie v. Mishkin) 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

Lourie v. Mishkin, 279 A.D. 754, 108 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

A general denial of an allegation of due performance is insufficient to raise an issue under present rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Under the terms of the separation agreement, the weekly payments were to continue during the lifetime of plaintiff’s testatrix. The $25,000 deposited by defendant was as security and was not to be the limit of the weeldy payments required to be made by defendant. The interpretation suggested by defendant, to wit, that the $25,000 deposited was to be in full satisfaction of all claims of plaintiff’s testatrix for support, is not only not warranted by the language of the agreement, but would make the agreement illegal. (Kyff v. Kyff, 286 N. Y. 71.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

A general denial of an allegation of due performance is insufficient to raise an issue under present rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Under the terms of the separation agreement, the weekly payments were to continue during the lifetime of plaintiff’s testatrix. The $25,000 deposited by defendant was as security and was not to be the limit of the weeldy payments required to be made by defendant. The interpretation suggested by defendant, to wit, that the $25,000 deposited was to be in full satisfaction of all claims of plaintiff’s testatrix for support, is not only not warranted by the language of the agreement, but would make the agreement illegal. (Kyff v. Kyff, 286 N. Y. 71.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 754, 108 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lourie-v-mishkin-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack