From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stukalin v. Stukalin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 21, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's request for a hearing regarding the interpretation of subdivision (d) of paragraph 8 of the parties' separation agreement. Subdivision (d), when read in the context of the entire paragraph 8 (see, Wing v Wing, 112 A.D.2d 932), is ambiguous. Inasmuch as no evidence as to their intent at the time of the execution of the agreement was presented by the parties, it was premature for the court to undertake construction of the clause without inquiring into the expectations of the parties at a hearing.

The court also erred in determining that consideration of the issue of whether the defendant was being "double billed" for child support and education expenses was barred by the res judicata doctrine by virtue of a prior order in this action. Thus, this issue should also be considered at the hearing. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stukalin v. Stukalin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Stukalin v. Stukalin

Case Details

Full title:RUTH N. STUKALIN, Respondent, v. ROBERT STUKALIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 21, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
538 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

Walker v. Walker

Stated otherwise, the stipulation provides no basis from which to discern a dividing line. Because the…

Perry v. Knab

We disagree. In our view, the parties' reference to "the term of unallocated support" renders the stipulation…