You are here: / / Criteria for Interpreting a Settlement Agreement Which Is Incorporated...
,

Criteria for Interpreting a Settlement Agreement Which Is Incorporated But Not Merged Into the Judgment of Divorce

In finding that a settlement agreement was not ambiguous and had been complied with by the mother, the Third Department explained the status of a separation agreement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce:

A settlement agreement that is incorporated into, but not merged with, a judgment of divorce remains an independent contract, binding on the parties and subject to the rules of contract interpretation … . “Where the language of the agreement is clear, the court must determine the intent of the parties by examining the agreement itself” … .”Whether language is ambiguous is a matter of law to be determined by the court, and in rendering this determination a court may not add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used” … . Matter of Drake v Drake, 516960, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

You might also like
Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED DEFENDANT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
CLAIMANT, WHO WAS UNABLE TO WORK BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
UPON REVERSAL OF MOTHER’S MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS, MOTHER ENTITLED TO NEW DISPOSITIONAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.
THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT THE CREATING-A-DISTURBANCE CHARGE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
Determination Annulled and Expunged—Hearing Officer Did Not Take Any Steps to Confirm the Reliability of the Confidential Information Upon Which the Determination Was Based

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

Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Mental... Failure to Allege that But for the Legal Malpractice the Causes of Action Would...