Sweeney v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sweeney v. Sweeney

250 A.D.2d 834, 672 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6017

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated March 13, 1997, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), [835]*835dated June 20, 1997, as denied his cross motion to purchase the parties’ East Hampton property for the sum of $191,000, and authorized the plaintiff to execute a contract of sale for that property on his behalf.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this casé, the Supreme Court did not err in interpreting the parties’ stipulation of settlement as precluding the appellant from making an offer to purchase the parties’ East Hampton property (see, DiLavore v DiLavore, 237 AD2d 322; Sklerov v Sklerov, 231 AD2d 622). Its determination did not amount to a reformation of the stipulation under the guise of interpreting it (see, Zahiralis v Hartman, 240 AD2d 488; Blake v Blake, 229 AD2d 509).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated March 13, 1997, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), [835]*835dated June 20, 1997, as denied his cross motion to purchase the parties’ East Hampton property for the sum of $191,000, and authorized the plaintiff to execute a contract of sale for that property on his behalf.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this casé, the Supreme Court did not err in interpreting the parties’ stipulation of settlement as precluding the appellant from making an offer to purchase the parties’ East Hampton property (see, DiLavore v DiLavore, 237 AD2d 322; Sklerov v Sklerov, 231 AD2d 622). Its determination did not amount to a reformation of the stipulation under the guise of interpreting it (see, Zahiralis v Hartman, 240 AD2d 488; Blake v Blake, 229 AD2d 509).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Sweeney v. Sweeney, 250 A.D.2d 834, 672 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 834 (Sweeney v. Sweeney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related