From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biderman v. Biderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1991
172 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).


The parties entered into a separation agreement, incorporated into a 1981 Judgment of Divorce, which obligated plaintiff to pay $30,000 in yearly support ($10,000 for each of two children and $10,000 alimony). It was provided therein that any modification of the separation agreement was to be in writing, and that the failure to strictly enforce the agreement would not act as a waiver of either party's rights thereunder.

Plaintiff stopped making alimony payments on September 1, 1986, claiming that he made payments in excess of what was required by the separation agreement for his children's higher education and that defendant relinquished her right to these alimony payments by refusing to pay for the children's education expenses out of the support payments. He also asserted that he was "lulled" into making these extra payments for the children's education since defendant did not request any arrears in alimony until after the children's education expenses were covered by plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that defendant had remarried an unidentified man or held herself out as being married to him. Defendant denies these assertions.

We agree with the IAS court that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant either intended to relinquish her rights to receive alimony or induced plaintiff into believing that she was waiving those rights by allowing plaintiff to pay the children's education expenses. The fact that plaintiff paid his children's education expenses in an amount above that which the separation agreement required him to pay for support did not negate his obligation to pay alimony. (Cf., Bara v. Bara, 130 A.D.2d 613.) These payments were not a legal obligation of the defendant (see, West v. West, 151 A.D.2d 475). Moreover, there was no written modification of the separation agreement to indicate such a change in plaintiff's obligations. Finally, plaintiff's argument that laches bars defendant's claim for alimony arrears is meritless as the separation agreement provided that failure to require strict compliance with the agreement would not act as a waiver. Moreover, there is evidence which demonstrates that defendant periodically requested the alimony arrears.

The IAS court's denial of defendant's claim for attorneys fees and costs was not an abuse of discretion in the circumstances presented. (See, Domestic Relations Law § 238.)

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Biderman v. Biderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 23, 1991
172 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Biderman v. Biderman

Case Details

Full title:JACK BIDERMAN, Appellant-Respondent, v. JUDIE BIDERMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 23, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 760

Citing Cases

Kanaan v. Kanaan

A laches claim is also unavailing because there is evidence which demonstrates that plaintiff periodically…