Cummins v. Lune

• Decision Date: 08 June 2017
• Parties: Katherine Maureen CUMMINS, Appellant, v. Howard LUNE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1258
56 N.Y.S.3d 631

Katherine Maureen CUMMINS, Appellant,
v.
Howard LUNE, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 8, 2017.

56 N.Y.S.3d 633

Law Office of Jay A. Kaplan, Kingston (Jay A. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.

Diana L. Kidd, New Paltz, for respondent.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.

ROSE, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered September 23, 2016 in Ulster County, which, among other things, partially denied plaintiff's motion for pendente lite relief.

Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were married in 2006 and have one child (born in 2001). In August 2015, the parties entered into a separation agreement regarding certain limited issues. Pursuant to their agreement, the husband remained in the marital residence and assumed the obligation to pay most of the monthly carrying charges associated with the residence while it was marketed for sale, after which the net proceeds would be evenly divided. In recognition of the husband's sizeable obligation to pay the carrying charges, the agreement limited the amount that he would pay the wife "for basic child and spousal support" to a single, combined payment of $1,475 per month, plus 17% of any royalty income he earned, and these payments would continue "until the marital residence [was] sold." The agreement further set forth that, notwithstanding any other language to the contrary, the wife was limited to the support payments that the agreement obligated the husband to pay.

In January 2016, the wife commenced this divorce action and, shortly thereafter, the marital residence was sold, the proceeds were equitably distributed in accordance with the agreement and the husband's obligation to pay the carrying charges ceased. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the terms of the separation agreement should nevertheless continue to limit the wife's maintenance and child support. As a result, she then moved for pendente lite relief seeking, among other things, a temporary award of child support in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b] [hereinafter CSSA] ), temporary maintenance (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5–a] ) and $3,500 in counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 ). In support of her request, the wife asserted that the support provision of the agreement was only intended to cover the period of time up until the house was sold. In response, the husband cross-moved for an order denying the wife's request for pendente lite relief and awarding him counsel fees. Supreme Court, concluding that it was unable to determine the parties intent from the agreement alone, ordered a full evidentiary hearing with testimony by the parties and their respective counsel who had drafted the agreement. In addition, the court continued the terms of the agreement, denied the wife's request for counsel fees and did not address her request in her reply papers to invalidate the agreement's child support provision for failing to comply with the CSSA. The wife now appeals.

56 N.Y.S.3d 634

Where a separation agreement "is clear and unambiguous on its face, the courts must determine the intent of the parties from within the four corners of the instrument" (Matter of Meccico v. Meccico, 76 N.Y.2d 822, 824, 559 N.Y.S.2d 974, 559 N.E.2d 668 [1990] ; see Matter of Wasyliw v. Smith, 18 A.D.3d 931, 932–933, 794 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2005] ; Matter of Vizvary v. Vizvary, 265 A.D.2d 697, 698, 696 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1999] ). In assessing the parties' intent, the agreement "should be read as a whole to ensure that undue emphasis is not placed upon particular words and phrases" (Consedine v. Portville Cent. School Dist., 12 N.Y.3d 286, 293, 879 N.Y.S.2d 806, 907 N.E.2d 684 [2009] ; see South Rd. Assoc., LLC v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 272, 277, 793 N.Y.S.2d 835, 826 N.E.2d 806 [2005] ). Further, a reading of the agreement "should not render any portion meaningless" (Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer, 8 N.Y.3d 318, 324–325, 834 N.Y.S.2d 44, 865 N.E.2d 1210 [2007] ; see Jenkins v. Jenkins, 145 A.D.3d 1231, 1234, 44 N.Y.S.3d 223 [2016] ).

Upon our review, we find that the agreement clearly and unambiguously reflects the...