Opinion
12-15-2016
Keiko HERSKOVITZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Michael HERSKOVITZ, Defendant–Respondent.
Elliott Scheinberg, New City, for appellant. Kanfer & Holtzer, LLP, New York (Alison M. Trainor of counsel), for respondent.
Elliott Scheinberg, New City, for appellant.
Kanfer & Holtzer, LLP, New York (Alison M. Trainor of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant husband Michael Herskovitz's motion for summary judgment, specifically finding that the parties' postnuptial agreement was determinative of all issues related to spousal maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This appeal is based on the faulty premise that the parties' postnuptial agreement was "totally silent" on the issue of spousal maintenance. A plain reading of the agreement reveals that it was not silent on the issue at all, however, and clearly manifested the parties' intent to settle all economic affairs between them, including maintenance, in the event of divorce. The agreement clearly stated that it was settling all maintenance issues, and it did not award any maintenance. The IAS court properly interpreted the contract "so as to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language employed" Morlee Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 9 N.Y.2d 16, 19, 210 N.Y.S.2d 516, 172 N.E.2d 280 (1961).