You are here: / / THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH PAY STUBS...
, ,

THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH PAY STUBS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR HER RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT INFORMAL TIMESHEETS WERE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PAY STUBS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement in the parties’ stipulation that, in order to receive child support, defendant must demonstrate her employment by furnishing pay stubs was not met by furnishing time sheets:

The parties’ stipulation of August 24, 2021, provides in pertinent part that plaintiff will pay defendant $2,000 per month “as a contribution towards [defendant’s] childcare expenses.” Plaintiff’s obligation to make the payment is conditioned upon defendant being “employed by a nonrelative” and upon her periodic furnishing to plaintiff of “paystub[s]” documenting such employment. The stipulation requires defendant to provide plaintiff with her first paystub from a given employer, the first and last paystub of each calendar year, and the paystub covering July 1 of each year. Defendant moved for an order directing plaintiff to make a childcare payment based on her provision of timesheets purporting to document childcare services that she performed for Matthew Kleban. Kleban is the father of two girls, one of whom is a friend of the parties’ daughter.

… [T]he parties, both represented by counsel, entered into a stipulation that expressly conditioned plaintiff’s obligation to make childcare payments upon defendant’s production of “paystub[s]” to document her employment by a nonrelative. The term “paystub” is defined as “a record that is given to an employee with each paycheck and that shows the amount of money earned and the amount that was removed for taxes, insurance costs, etc.” (https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paystub); accord Black’s Law Dictionary 1364 [11th ed 2019]). Under this definition, and based upon the circumstances herein, the informal timesheets produced by defendant plainly do not qualify as “paystubs.” In holding that plaintiff’s childcare payment obligation was nonetheless triggered under the stipulation because the timesheets were the “functional equivalent” of paystubs, the motion court impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ agreement by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction … . Franklin v Franklin, 2023 NY Slip Op 04925, First De[t 10-3-23

Practice Point: Here the judge’s finding that informal timesheets were the functional equivalent of pay stubs impermissibly changed the meaning of the parties’ stipulation. The stipulation required plaintiff to prove she was employed as a prerequisite for her receipt of child support.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
½ Inch Differential Was Trivial and Could Not Be Basis of Liability
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED; THERFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S JUMPING FROM A STALLED ELEVATOR WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF NYPD DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN DENIED.
ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE TENANT WHO SET FIRE TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING, INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE TENANT THREATENED “TO KILL EVERYONE” IN THE BUILDING AND WAS SEEN CARRYING GASOLINE TANKS INTO THE BUILDING; THE DEFENDANT LANDLORDS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT THE TENANT FROM STARTING THE FIRE (FIRST 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

PETITIONER-PEDESTRIAN ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK HER... WHERE THERE IS A WRITTEN CONTRACT, AN ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT WILL NOT...