Smith v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Smith

80 A.D.2d 749, 437 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 749 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 80 A.D.2d 749, 437 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In 1976 plaintiff obtained a conversion divorce from defendant after living apart from her for one year pursuant to a separation agreement. By the terms of that agreement defendant waived alimony but she was given exclusive possession of the marital home and defendant agreed to pay all taxes, mortgage expenses and carrying charges. In 1979 plaintiff instituted this proceeding seeking an “interpretation” that the payments required of him by the agreement should be reduced as each of his minor children reached majority. The court granted the application and also ordered that the wife’s right to occupy the premises would terminate when the last child reached 18 and that the premises should then be sold. The agreement is unambiguous and requires no interpretation and the court’s order improperly modified its terms (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210; McMains v McMains, 15 NY2d 283; Raines v Raines, 80 AD2d 721; and see, generally, 2 Foster & Freed, Law and the Family, § 26.8). The order is modified by striking the first four ordering [750]*750paragraphs, and, insofar as it grants the wife’s cross motion to recover support arrears and other incidental damages, it is affirmed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court — modify separation agreement.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In 1976 plaintiff obtained a conversion divorce from defendant after living apart from her for one year pursuant to a separation agreement. By the terms of that agreement defendant waived alimony but she was given exclusive possession of the marital home and defendant agreed to pay all taxes, mortgage expenses and carrying charges. In 1979 plaintiff instituted this proceeding seeking an “interpretation” that the payments required of him by the agreement should be reduced as each of his minor children reached majority. The court granted the application and also ordered that the wife’s right to occupy the premises would terminate when the last child reached 18 and that the premises should then be sold. The agreement is unambiguous and requires no interpretation and the court’s order improperly modified its terms (see Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210; McMains v McMains, 15 NY2d 283; Raines v Raines, 80 AD2d 721; and see, generally, 2 Foster & Freed, Law and the Family, § 26.8). The order is modified by striking the first four ordering [750]*750paragraphs, and, insofar as it grants the wife’s cross motion to recover support arrears and other incidental damages, it is affirmed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court — modify separation agreement.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 749, 437 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack