You are here: / / DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE...
,

DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that a divorce settlement agreement which indicated a specific date (2020) when the husband’s maintenance obligation ends did not extend the husband’s maintenance obligation beyond the wife’s remarriage in 2015. Because the agreement was silent on the meaning of “maintenance” the court turned to Domestic Relations Law 236 which indicates that a maintenance obligation terminates upon remarriage:

A divorce settlement agreement is a contract, subject to standard principles of contract interpretation … . The agreement at issue does not explicitly define the term “maintenance,” and it is silent regarding the effect of the wife’s remarriage upon the husband’s maintenance obligation. Thus, the plain text of the agreement — which the Court of Appeals says is the best source of the parties’ intent … — is not conclusive of the question on appeal.

“Nevertheless, it is basic that, unless a contract provides otherwise, the law in force at the time the agreement is entered into becomes as much a part of the agreement as though it were expressed or referred to therein, for it is presumed that the parties had such law in contemplation when the contract was made and the contract will be construed in the light of such law” (Dolman v United States Trust Co. of N.Y., 2 NY2d 110, 116 [1956] …). The Dolman rule is of longstanding vintage, and the “principle embraces alike those [laws in force at the time of a contract’s execution] which affect its validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement” … . By virtue of the Dolman rule, when parties enter into an agreement authorized by or related to a particular statutory scheme, the courts will presume — absent something to the contrary — that the terms of the agreement are to be interpreted consistently with the corresponding statutory scheme … .

The statutory scheme corresponding to the agreement in this case is Domestic Relations Law § 236, which authorizes divorce settlement agreements and directs that such agreements specify the “amount and duration of maintenance,” if any … . The term ” maintenance’ ” is defined within this statutory scheme as “payments provided for in a valid agreement between the parties or awarded by the court . . . , to be paid at fixed intervals for a definite or indefinite period of time” … . Critically, the statutory definition includes the following caveat: any maintenance award “shall terminate upon the death of either party or upon the payee’s valid or invalid marriage” … . Burns v Burns, 2018 NY Slip Op 05411, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Error Relating to Assessment of 10% Surcharge Must Be Preserved by Objection
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DESTROY A MOTORCYCLE WHEN SHE STARTED A FIRE IN A GARAGE, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).
Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DROVE THE SHOOTER TO AND AWAY FROM THE MURDER SCENE; BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL; DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION AS AN ACCOMPLICE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Should Have Granted a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction on Ineffective-Assistance Grounds
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (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

NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER... VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT...