Klein v. Klein

Decision Date30 December 2015
Citation134 A.D.3d 1066,22 N.Y.S.3d 547
Parties Richard KLEIN, respondent, v. Caryn KLEIN, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

134 A.D.3d 1066
22 N.Y.S.3d 547

Richard KLEIN, respondent,
v.
Caryn KLEIN, appellant.

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

Dec. 30, 2015.


22 N.Y.S.3d 548

Delbello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Jill O'Hara of counsel), for appellant.

Miller Zeiderman Wiederkehr & Schwarz, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Evan Wiederkehr of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

134 A.D.3d 1066

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), entered July 14, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to enforce the parties' stipulations of settlement and, in effect, to recover damages for the defendant's alleged breach of the stipulations, to the extent of awarding the plaintiff the sum of $3,619.75, and reserved decision on that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as reserved decision on that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $3,619.75, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff the sum of

22 N.Y.S.3d 549

$2,346.96; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 2003 and are the parents of one minor child. In 2012, the plaintiff commenced this matrimonial action. On March 15, 2013, the parties placed on the record in open court a stipulation resolving all issues of equitable distribution, including the disposition of four jointly-owned

134 A.D.3d 1067

timeshare properties (hereinafter the timeshares). The parties agreed that one of the timeshares, located in Orlando, Florida, would be transferred to the defendant and that the remaining three timeshares would be transferred to the plaintiff. The transfers would not occur until the plaintiff paid the defendant the balance of a distributive award in the amount of $191,000. In addition, it was agreed that the defendant would cooperate and sign any documents required to effectuate the transfers. On May 3, 2013, the parties executed a written stipulation of settlement resolving all other issues and incorporating by reference the terms of the March 15, 2013, in-court stipulation. The parties were divorced by judgment dated October 3, 2013 (Christopher, J.). The two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • MBIA Ins. Corp. v. JPMorgan Sec. LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2016
    ...were to be shared within a reasonable time (see, e.g., Savasta v. 470 Newport Assocs., 82 N.Y.2d 763 [1993] ; Klein v. Klein, 134 A.D.3d 1066, 22 N.Y.S.3d 547 [2d Dept 2015] ).Similarly, while the Bid Letter does not define “loan file results,” there is evidence in this record that would su......
  • Tuchman v. Tuchman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 26, 2022
    ...is a contract, enforceable according to its terms" ( Stein v. Stein, 130 A.D.3d 604, 605, 12 N.Y.S.3d 284 ; see Klein v. Klein, 134 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 22 N.Y.S.3d 547 ). Here, the June 2017 stipulation provided that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff the sum of $2.1 million, less two sp......
  • Palaia v. Palaia
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2018
    ...is a contract, enforceable according to its terms" ( Stein v. Stein, 130 A.D.3d 604, 605, 12 N.Y.S.3d 284 ; see Klein v. Klein, 134 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 22 N.Y.S.3d 547 ). Where a stipulation of settlement is susceptible of differing interpretations and is thus ambiguous, a court is "entitled......
  • Giuffre Motor Car Co. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 29, 2016
    ...a court "must give effect to the parties' intent based upon the plain meaning of the words used by the parties." Klein v. Klein, 22 N.Y.S.3d 547, 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) (quoting Stein v. Stein, 12 N.Y.S.3d 284, 286 (App. Div. 2015)); Long Island Junior Soccer League v. Back of Net, Ltd.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT