You are here: / / Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Terms in Separation Agreement
,

Criteria for Interpreting Ambiguous Terms in Separation Agreement

The Third Department explained how ambiguity in the terms of a separation agreement is to be handled by the courts:

Ambiguity in a separation agreement is resolved, as with any contract, by determining the parties’ intent from within the instrument’s four corners, if possible, and otherwise from extrinsic evidence … . In doing so, “[t]he court is not limited to the literal language of the agreement, but should also include a consideration of whatever may be reasonably implied from that literal language”… . Matter of Apjohn v Lubinski, 516326, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

You might also like
THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH MAKES A LANDLORD’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT TENANTS WHO RECEIVE SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF ACCEPTING SECTION 8 FUNDS, LANDLORDS MUST SUBMIT TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OF APARTMENTS AND RECORDS (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S STATEMENT NOT CORROBORATED, CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Question of Fact About Resort Owner’s Duty to Maintain Walkways in Winter Despite Claim the Resort Was Closed in the Winter Months
NO INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION BY YARD WASTE BUSINESS WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP), DEFAMATION AND RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST NEIGHBOR BASED ON STATEMENTS MADE BY THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE YARD WASTE BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Father Not Denied Due Process by Absence from Portion of Neglect Proceeding
OPERATOR OF A JANITORIAL CLEANING BUSINESS PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FRANCHISOR.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Review of Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted by Change of Circumstances/Seriousness... Family Court Improperly Delegated Its Responsibility to Set the Terms of Father’s...