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
TROOPER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF BAGS IN HIS VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S NERVOUSNESS AND INCONSISTENT ANSWERS DID NOT JUSTIFY THE QUESTIONING, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD; I.E., ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL; HERE THE MOTION WAS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)
BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S THEORY, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO CALL A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR $1000 TO HIRE A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
HERE THE PEOPLE REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING BUT THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT; THEREFORE THE ENTIRE TIME BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND THE HEARING WAS COUNTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE FOR “SPEEDY TRIAL” PURPOSES (FOURTH DEPT).
Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed

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 © 2025 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...