Trepel v. Trepel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trepel v. Trepel

113 A.D.3d 560, 979 N.Y.2d 72

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 560 (Trepel v. Trepel) 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

Trepel v. Trepel, 113 A.D.3d 560, 979 N.Y.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The “Voluntary Payments” clause in the parties’ stipulation of settlement provides that “[a]ny payments made by either party to the other . . . shall not alter that party’s legal obligations hereunder (except to the extent it discharges or satisfies such obligations), nor create any precedent for the future.” This clause clearly and unambiguously expresses the intent of the parties (see e.g. Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822 [1990]). Since the payments to defendant that plaintiff was not obligated to make, however generous, did not satisfy any of his obligations under the stipulation, he is liable for the unpaid COLA increases and distributive award interest required by the stipulation.

Plaintiff failed to support his motion for renewal with reasonable justification for not submitting the purportedly new facts on the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). In any event, the new facts would not have changed the original determination.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

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

The “Voluntary Payments” clause in the parties’ stipulation of settlement provides that “[a]ny payments made by either party to the other . . . shall not alter that party’s legal obligations hereunder (except to the extent it discharges or satisfies such obligations), nor create any precedent for the future.” This clause clearly and unambiguously expresses the intent of the parties (see e.g. Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822 [1990]). Since the payments to defendant that plaintiff was not obligated to make, however generous, did not satisfy any of his obligations under the stipulation, he is liable for the unpaid COLA increases and distributive award interest required by the stipulation.

Plaintiff failed to support his motion for renewal with reasonable justification for not submitting the purportedly new facts on the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). In any event, the new facts would not have changed the original determination.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 560, 979 N.Y.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trepel-v-trepel-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack