You are here: / / Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife...
, ,

Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a provision in a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree constituted an employment contract breached when the plaintiff wife opened a competing business.  The reason for the agreement was to allow plaintiff wife to be paid maintenance by defendant husband’s business during the time when the husband was obligated to pay child support.  The wife was a consultant to defendant’s business:

It is well established that a separation agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce “is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation” … , and “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . By entering into the Agreement, defendant agreed to employ plaintiff in the event his maintenance obligation terminated during the period of time in which he was still obligated to pay child support. Inasmuch as the language of the Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, “the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” … .

While we agree with plaintiff and the court that the clear and unambiguous intent of the Agreement was to provide a substitute source of monetary support for plaintiff after defendant’s maintenance obligation terminated, we conclude that the reason defendant agreed to employ plaintiff does not change the fact that the Agreement established an employment relationship with corresponding rights and obligations for both parties.

As we have previously stated, “[a]n employee may not compete with his [or her] employer’s business during the time of his [or her] employment” … . When plaintiff opened a business in direct competition with defendant’s business, plaintiff breached her duty of loyalty to her employer … , thereby permitting defendant to terminate the consultation fees and the employment relationship. Anderson v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06415, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

You might also like
STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Appeal Dismissal of Underlying Medical Malpractice Action Did Not Preclude Related Legal Malpractice Action
THE TOWN AMBULANCE PARAMEDICS DECIDED NOT TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE HOSPITAL; THAT DECISION WAS DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE ENTITLING THE TOWN TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY IN THIS MED MAL ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Denial of Visitation With Incarcerated Father Upheld
TO FACILITATE APPELLATE REVIEW THE JUDGE WHO AWARDED PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN A DECISION EXPLAINING THE BURDENS OF PROOF AND REASONING; ISSUING ORDERS WITHOUT AN EXPLANATORY DECISION IS AN “UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE;” PLAINTIFFS DID NOT SHOW THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY REASONABLE ONE; THE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED INTENT TO BREACH THE CONTRACT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE DETERMINED DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE DOG HAD NEVER EXHIBITED VICIOUS BEHAVIOR BEFORE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

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

In a Personal Injury Trial, Defense Counsel Should Have Been Permitted to Question... Continuing Representation Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Exp...