Lourie v. Mishkin

279 A.D. 754, 108 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 1951·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

279 A.D. 754 (Lourie v. Mishkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martin Fireproofing Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
45 Misc. 2d 354 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Republic Lodge No. 1987
10 Misc. 2d 783 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)