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
SURROGATE’S COURT, IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND FINAL ACCOUNTING REGARDING A TRUST, DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
VERBAL NOTICE TO CITY ABOUT POTHOLES, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY POTHOLES (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE PURSUIT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT IN A STREET STOP (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT HAD FOUND COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON LIVE MUSIC PERFORMANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE MERITS WERE NOT REACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (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...