Slatt v. Slatt
| Decision Date | 21 March 1985 |
| Citation | 488 N.Y.S.2d 645,64 N.Y.2d 966,477 N.E.2d 1099 |
| Parties | , 477 N.E.2d 1099 Joann C. SLATT, Respondent, v. Abner P. SLATT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 102 A.D.2d 475, 477 N.Y.S.2d 178, should be affirmed, with costs.
Paragraph fifth of a separation agreement, prepared by defendant's counsel and executed by the parties on July 1, 1969, provides for the periodic payment of various sums by the husband to the wife for her "support and maintenance" until she "dies or remarries". In addition to the monthly installments required to be paid pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b), subparagraph (c) calls for the payment of $500 on December 31, 1969 and "on December 31, 1970 the sum of $1,000.00; and on each and every December 31st thereafter, a like sum of $1,000.00." Subparagraph (g) provides that: "In addition to the foregoing payments, the wife shall receive an additional sum representing a cost of living increase based upon the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, above the base figure, as set forth in said Statistics for the year 1969."
The trial court found that, despite an 11 year period during which the husband made no payments of a cost of living increase on the annual payments of $1,000 under subparagraph (c) the foregoing language obligated him to pay a cost of living increase on those annual payments, as well as on the monthly installments called for under subparagraphs (a) and (b). A divided Appellate Division affirmed, the majority finding that the language was unambiguous and that such ambiguity as may exist should be resolved against the defendant. We agree.
In adjudicating the rights of parties to a contract, courts may not fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction (Morlee Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 9 N.Y.2d 16, 210 N.Y.S.2d 516, 172 N.E.2d 280); rather, they are required to discern the intent of the parties, " 'to the extent that [the parties] evidenced what they intended by what they wrote' " (Laba v. Carey, 29 N.Y.2d 302, 308, 327 N.Y.S.2d 613, 277 N.E.2d 641). Where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used (10 N.Y.Jur., Contracts, § 193; Hall & Co. v. Orient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation
...they chose to use." Seiden Assocs., Inc. v. ANC Holdings, Inc. , 959 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Slatt v. Slatt , 64 N.Y.2d 966, 488 N.Y.S.2d 645, 477 N.E.2d 1099, 1100 (1985) ).2. Analysis ABC does not dispute the existence or validity of the SLA or Capri Sun's performance under i......
-
Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd. (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.)
...they chose to use." Seiden Assocs. Inc. v. ANC Holdings, Inc. , 959 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Slatt v. Slatt , 64 N.Y.2d 966, 488 N.Y.S.2d 645, 477 N.E.2d 1099 (N.Y. 1985) ). Moreover, it is presumed that every clause in a contract was intended to have an effect. See City of Hart......
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp.
...language. Seiden Associates, Inc. v. ANC Holdings, Inc., 959 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir.1992) (citing Slatt v. Slatt, 64 N.Y.2d 966, 967, 488 N.Y.S.2d 645, 477 N.E.2d 1099 (N.Y.1985)). When the question is a contract's proper construction, summary judgment may be granted when its words convey a ......
-
Levine v. Advest, Inc.
...Analysis of the contract focuses on the intention of the parties as derived from the language employed. Slatt v. Slatt, 64 N.Y.2d 966, 967, 477 N.E.2d 1099, 488 N.Y.S.2d 645 (1985); Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Assn., supra, at 291, 344 N.Y.S.2d 925, 298 N.E.2d......
-
CONTRACTING AROUND CPLR 202: "ACCRUAL" BORROWING STATUTE IN NEW YORK PRACTICE AND WHY ITS CURRENT APPLICATION IS UNWORKABLE.
...neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties' intent." (citing Slatt v. Slatt, 477 N.E.2d 1099, 1100 (N.Y. 1985))). "The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing." Id. at 170 (quot......