Confidentiality is one of the most important aspects of the attorney-client relationship, so we would never reveal the names of our clients or cases. That being said, while every case is unique, there... is an excellent chance our firm has recently litigated a case with your identical legal issue or one that is similar. While we cannot reveal the names of our cases or clients, we would be happy to meet you and tell you about other cases where we litigated a similar issue and the result.
Child custody
Confidential
N/A
OUTCOME:
In December of 2016, our client received a letter from his former wife’s attorney demanding over $200,000.00 in child support arrears, despite the fact that the parties entered into two agreements in 2...007 and 2008, which resolved certain custody and support issues. Our client’s former spouse was alleging through her attorneys that those agreements, made by the parties without attorneys, were unenforceable, and that as a result, our client owed her over $200,000.00 in child support for the past ten years!
Following six months of litigation, the Honorable Glenn A. Murphy of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, issued a Decision on July 10, 2017, declaring that the two agreements were enforceable. The other party, disagreeing with the Court’s Decision, appealed to the higher court, which this month issued a decision affirming that the 2007 and 2008 agreements are enforceable. The Appellate Court, agreeing with our firm and the Honorable Glenn A. Murphy, held:
“A separation agreement is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation (see Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822, 823-824; Matter of Tammone v Tammone, 94 AD3d 1131, 1133; Fishbein v Fishbein, 72 AD3d 1021, 1021). 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 (see Matter of Tammone v Tammone, 94 AD3d at 1133; Fishbein v Fishnein, 72 AD3d at 1021-1022). Here, the 2007 writing and the 2008 writing are unambiguous (see Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d at 823-824; Fishbein v Fishbein, 72 AD3d at 1021-1022; Kosnac v Kosnac, 60 AD3d 636, 637; Winski v Russo Kane, 33 AD3d 697, 698). Accordingly, the Supreme Court was not required to conduct a hearing and we agree with the court's determination that the 2007 writing and the 2008 writing are enforceable (see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 NY3d 430, 436; cf. Salinger v Salinger, 125 AD3d 747, 749).”
