Moskowitz v. Botway

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Moskowitz v. Botway

28 Misc. 2d 551, 208 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2061

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 551 (Moskowitz v. Botway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moskowitz v. Botway, 28 Misc. 2d 551, 208 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

No genuine and substantial issue is presented as to the intent of the parties in using the phrase “ metropolitan area of the City of New York ” in their separation agreement. The phrase has a clear and precise meaning and specifically includes not only Atlantic Beach, which is just over the border line of Queens County, but all of Long Island. If it was intended to limit the child’s abode to the five counties of the City of New York, it would have been a simple matter to have stated that she was “ not to be taken outside of the City of New York”. The language of the instrument being unambiguous, testimony to ascertain the intention of the parties is unnecessary and unjustified.

[552]*552The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and- motion granted. : -

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Stetjer and-Timer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

No genuine and substantial issue is presented as to the intent of the parties in using the phrase “ metropolitan area of the City of New York ” in their separation agreement. The phrase has a clear and precise meaning and specifically includes not only Atlantic Beach, which is just over the border line of Queens County, but all of Long Island. If it was intended to limit the child’s abode to the five counties of the City of New York, it would have been a simple matter to have stated that she was “ not to be taken outside of the City of New York”. The language of the instrument being unambiguous, testimony to ascertain the intention of the parties is unnecessary and unjustified.

[552]*552The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and- motion granted. : -

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Stetjer and-Timer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 551, 208 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moskowitz-v-botway-nyappterm-1960.