Berlin v. Berlin

4 Citing cases

  1. Palau v. Palau

    219 A.D.3d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    "A stipulation of settlement that has been incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation" ( Murphy v. Murphy, 120 A.D.3d 1319, 1320, 992 N.Y.S.2d 565 ; seeMcPhillips v. McPhillips, 165 A.D.3d 917, 919, 85 N.Y.S.3d 541 ). "Where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used" ( Ayers v. Ayers, 92 A.D.3d 623, 624, 938 N.Y.S.2d 572 ; seeBerlin v. Berlin, 192 A.D.3d 856, 857, 140 N.Y.S.3d 738 ). "A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the apparent meaning" ( Ayers v. Ayers, 92 A.D.3d at 624, 938 N.Y.S.2d 572 ; seeKirk v. Kirk, 207 A.D.3d 708, 711, 174 N.Y.S.3d 381 ).

  2. Kirk v. Kirk

    207 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    "Agreements are construed in accordance with the parties' intent, and the best evidence of intent is the written instrument" (Van de Walle v Van de Walle, 200 A.D.3d at 1098). "A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract's apparent meaning" (Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 291 A.D.2d 474, 475; see Berlin v Berlin, 192 A.D.3d 856, 857). "Accordingly, where the language of the agreement is clear and unambiguous, the court should determine the intent of the parties based on that language without resorting to extrinsic evidence" (Schaff v Schaff, 172 A.D.3d 1421, 1423; Colucci v Colucci, 54 A.D.3d at 712).

  3. JC v. Lac

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    "A stipulation of settlement that has been incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation" (see Palau v Palau, 219 A.D.3d 919 [2d Dept 2023] quoting Murphy v Murphy, 120 A.D.3d 1319 [2d Dept 2014]; citing McPhillips v McPhillips, 165 A.D.3d 917 [2d Dept 2018]). "Where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used" (see id quoting Ayers v Ayers, 92 A.D.3d 623 [2d Dept 2012]; citing Berlin v Berlin, 192 A.D.3d 856 [2d Dept 2021]).

  4. Silla v. Silla

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30716 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    " 'Agreements are construed in accordance with the parties' intent, and the best evidence of intent is the written instrument'" (Kirk, 207 A.D.3d at 711, quoting Van de Walle, 200 A.D.3d at 1098)." 'A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract's apparent meaning'" (Kirk, 207 A.D.3d at 711, quoting Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 291 A.D.2d 474, 475 [2d Dept 2002]; see also Berlin v Berlin, 192 A.D.3d 856, 857 [2d Dept 2021])." 'Accordingly, where the language of the agreement is clear and unambiguous, the court should determine the intent of the parties based on that language without resorting to extrinsic evidence'" (Kirk, 207 A.D.3d at 711, quoting Schaff v Schaff, 172 A.D.3d 1421, 1423 [2d Dept 2019]; see also Colucci, 54 A.D.3d at 712).