MATTER OF MECCICO v. Meccico

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF MECCICO v. Meccico

559 N.E.2d 668, 76 N.Y.2d 822, 559 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1971

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by123 cases

This text of 559 N.E.2d 668 (MATTER OF MECCICO v. Meccico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF MECCICO v. Meccico, 559 N.E.2d 668, 76 N.Y.2d 822, 559 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1971 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order of Family Court reinstated.

A separation agreement is a contract subject to the princi *824 pies of contract construction and interpretation (Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109). Where the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the courts must determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the instrument (id.; Nichols v Nichols, 306 NY 490, 496, reh denied 307 NY 677). The agreement at issue unambiguously created two separate obligations for the husband: the first for $300 per month as child support, and the second for $150 per month to the wife to defray rental costs. Although the agreement provides that child support will terminate when the children reach maturity or emancipation, no similar termination clause was attached to the rent provision. Accordingly, the Family Court order requiring defendant to pay $150 in maintenance, even after all his children reach the age of majority, was correct and should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order of Family Court reinstated.

A separation agreement is a contract subject to the princi *824 pies of contract construction and interpretation (Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109). Where the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the courts must determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the instrument (id.; Nichols v Nichols, 306 NY 490, 496, reh denied 307 NY 677). The agreement at issue unambiguously created two separate obligations for the husband: the first for $300 per month as child support, and the second for $150 per month to the wife to defray rental costs. Although the agreement provides that child support will terminate when the children reach maturity or emancipation, no similar termination clause was attached to the rent provision. Accordingly, the Family Court order requiring defendant to pay $150 in maintenance, even after all his children reach the age of majority, was correct and should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 N.E.2d 668, 76 N.Y.2d 822, 559 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-meccico-v-meccico-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack