Makkos v. Makkos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Makkos v. Makkos

71 A.D.3d 563, 896 N.Y.S.2d 678

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 563 (Makkos v. Makkos) 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

Makkos v. Makkos, 71 A.D.3d 563, 896 N.Y.S.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered September 29, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, found defendant had not met his stipulated obligation to pay plaintiff $250,000, and directed him to pay that sum within 30 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties clearly and unambiguously agreed that defendant would pay $250,000 directly to plaintiff over a period of three years following the execution of their stipulation in 2003. It is undisputed that defendant failed to make these payments. He contends that plaintiff should be equitably estopped from raising that failure because he made voluntary payments to third parties during that period. The court correctly rejected that argument without holding an evidentiary hearing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered September 29, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, found defendant had not met his stipulated obligation to pay plaintiff $250,000, and directed him to pay that sum within 30 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties clearly and unambiguously agreed that defendant would pay $250,000 directly to plaintiff over a period of three years following the execution of their stipulation in 2003. It is undisputed that defendant failed to make these payments. He contends that plaintiff should be equitably estopped from raising that failure because he made voluntary payments to third parties during that period. The court correctly rejected that argument without holding an evidentiary hearing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 563, 896 N.Y.S.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makkos-v-makkos-nyappdiv-2010.