Schreier v. Schreier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schreier v. Schreier

267 A.D.2d 156, 700 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13201

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 156 (Schreier v. Schreier) 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

Schreier v. Schreier, 267 A.D.2d 156, 700 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 12, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for clarification and enforcement of the parties’ open-court stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found the stipulation to be ambiguous. It properly relied on its first-hand familiarity of its negotiation in finding that the parties intended that plaintiff pay their daughter’s private school tuition regardless of the school’s location, as long as the child resides in Manhattan. Nothing on the face of the stipulation causes us to interpret it as relieving plaintiff from his obligation to pay tuition if the school is not located in Manhattan. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 12, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for clarification and enforcement of the parties’ open-court stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found the stipulation to be ambiguous. It properly relied on its first-hand familiarity of its negotiation in finding that the parties intended that plaintiff pay their daughter’s private school tuition regardless of the school’s location, as long as the child resides in Manhattan. Nothing on the face of the stipulation causes us to interpret it as relieving plaintiff from his obligation to pay tuition if the school is not located in Manhattan. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 156, 700 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schreier-v-schreier-nyappdiv-1999.