Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Richard LANG, appellant, v. Kathleen LANG, respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 18, 2000, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), entered November 26, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 15, 2003, granting those branches of the defendant's motion which were to confirm so much of a referee's report and recommendation (Platt, J.H.O.), as found him in willful violation of certain terms of the parties' stipulation of settlement and the judgment of divorce and directing the entry of judgment against him in the principal sum of $86,437.30, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $86,437.30.
ORDERED that the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A separation agreement is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation (see Meccico v. Meccico, 76 N.Y.2d 822, 823-824, 559 N.Y.S.2d 974, 559 N.E.2d 668). The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff willfully violated the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated, but not merged, into their judgment of divorce, when he failed to comply with its provision regarding the upkeep of their investment property (see Gomes v. Gomes, 303 A.D.2d 454, 455, 757 N.Y.S.2d 566), and the defendant was thereby damaged in the principal sum of $86,437.30.
Since the plaintiff did not appeal from a separate order entered April 28, 2003, granting the defendant an award of an attorney's fee, his contention regarding the fee is not properly before this court.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 05, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)