Tirella v. Tirella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tirella v. Tirella

249 A.D.2d 294, 670 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 294 (Tirella v. Tirella) 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

Tirella v. Tirella, 249 A.D.2d 294, 670 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 28, 1996, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered March 10, 1997, as granted the defendant credit against his child support obligation for payments made by the Social Security Administration on behalf of the children of the marriage.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine the intention of the parties with regard to that portion of the stipulation dated November 26, 1996, concerning payments made by the Social Security Administration on behalf of the parties’ children, and whether those payments are to be credited against the defendant’s child support obligation.

On November 26, 1996, the parties stipulated in open court [295]*295to settle the defendant’s child support arrears, estimated at $60,000, for $45,000, and to reduce the defendant’s child support obligation from $300 per week to $230 per week, based upon the defendant’s representation that he was receiving only $75 per week in disability payments. Although the parties acknowledged that the defendant was expecting to receive Social Security disability benefits for himself and his children, it is unclear if they intended that the defendant receive a credit against his child support payments for those Social Security benefits which are paid on behalf of the children.

Where the terms of a stipulation are ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties (see, Derasmo v Derasmo, 190 AD2d 655; Ackerberg v Ackerberg, 154 AD2d 414). Accordingly, a hearing is required to determine the intention of the parties on the issue of whether the defendant may take a credit in his child support payments to reflect the Social Security disability payments received on behalf of the parties’ children. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman 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 judgment dated June 28, 1996, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered March 10, 1997, as granted the defendant credit against his child support obligation for payments made by the Social Security Administration on behalf of the children of the marriage.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine the intention of the parties with regard to that portion of the stipulation dated November 26, 1996, concerning payments made by the Social Security Administration on behalf of the parties’ children, and whether those payments are to be credited against the defendant’s child support obligation.

On November 26, 1996, the parties stipulated in open court [295]*295to settle the defendant’s child support arrears, estimated at $60,000, for $45,000, and to reduce the defendant’s child support obligation from $300 per week to $230 per week, based upon the defendant’s representation that he was receiving only $75 per week in disability payments. Although the parties acknowledged that the defendant was expecting to receive Social Security disability benefits for himself and his children, it is unclear if they intended that the defendant receive a credit against his child support payments for those Social Security benefits which are paid on behalf of the children.

Where the terms of a stipulation are ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties (see, Derasmo v Derasmo, 190 AD2d 655; Ackerberg v Ackerberg, 154 AD2d 414). Accordingly, a hearing is required to determine the intention of the parties on the issue of whether the defendant may take a credit in his child support payments to reflect the Social Security disability payments received on behalf of the parties’ children. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 294, 670 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirella-v-tirella-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack