Springer v. Springer

Decision Date18 February 2015
Citation125 A.D.3d 842,1 N.Y.S.3d 830 (Mem)
Parties Elraldo SPRINGER, appellant, v. Diane SPRINGER, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Mace H. Greenfield, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated May 29, 2009, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated September 20, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to direct him to pay his pro rata share of the out-of-pocket college costs of the parties' oldest child, pursuant to the terms of the parties' stipulation of settlement.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly construed the provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement governing parental contributions to their children's college costs. Since the language of the subject provision was susceptible of different interpretations, the provision was ambiguous, and the court was entitled to rely upon, inter alia, the language of the entire agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution in construing the provision (see generally Kurtz v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 904, 904–905, 865 N.Y.S.2d 242 ). In doing so, the court was required to "arrive at a construction that will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized" (Matter of Schiano v. Hirsch, 22 A.D.3d 502, 502, 803 N.Y.S.2d 643 ).

Here, the parties expressly acknowledged that their son would likely attend college, and they stated their mutual intention to contribute to his college expenses up to their pro rata shares of the so-called "SUNY cap." However, while the defendant advocated an interpretation of the stipulation provision that would achieve that intention, the plaintiff proposed an interpretation that would render the parental contribution obligation largely illusory by first deducting the son's financial aid award, scholarships, grants, and student loans from the SUNY cap amount rather than from the total amount of the son's college expenses. The Supreme Court correctly adopted the defendant's proffered interpretation of the provision to require that all financial aid awarded to the son be applied first to reduce...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dillon v. Dillon
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 16, 2017
    ...payment of the child's higher education costs and gave "a sensible and practical meaning" to such provision ( Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 843, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 [2015] ).The mother does not advocate for any particular financial responsibility by the parties with respect to the child'......
  • Palaia v. Palaia
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2018
    ...surrounding its execution in construing the provision" ( Noren v. Babus, 144 A.D.3d 762, 764, 41 N.Y.S.3d 94 ; see Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 843, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 ; Kurtz v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 904, 905, 865 N.Y.S.2d 242 ).Here, the stipulation of settlement, which provides that "t......
  • Wheeler v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 31, 2019
    ...university exceeds "the cost of SUNY Geneseo" established at the hearing before the Support Magistrate (see Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 843, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 [2d Dept. 2015] ). Although the father proposed a method to resolve that absurd result in which the cap would be calculated b......
  • Noren v. Babus
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 9, 2016
    ...the language of the entire agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution in construing the provision (see Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 ; Kurtz v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 904, 865 N.Y.S.2d 242 ). During motion practice, both the defendant and the plaintiff inte......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 27 AMBIGUOUS AGREEMENTS
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Contract Doctrine and Marital Agreements in New York
    • Invalid date
    ...no need for extrinsic evidence because the prenuptial agreement unambiguously precludes equitable distribution.); Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 (2d Dep't 2015) (The provision regarding contributions to college costs was susceptible of different interpretations, which ......
  • Chapter 45 HOW COURTS HAVE CONSTRUED CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Contract Doctrine and Marital Agreements in New York
    • Invalid date
    ...fees and expenses charged by the college.).[6900] 174 A.D.3d 1507, 108 N.Y.S.3d 251 (4th Dep't 2019).[6901] Springer v. Springer, 125 A.D.3d 842, 1 N.Y.S.3d 830 (2d Dep't 2015) (The provision governing contributions towards college costs, which stated the parents' intention to contribute to......

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