Legal Opinion
Ramon v. Ramon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 25, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A stipulation of settlement in a matrimonial action is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation (see Petrovich v Obradovic, 40 AD3d 1063, 1065 [2007]; Clark v Clark, 33 AD3d 836, 837 [2006]; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552 [2004]; De Luca v De Luca, 300 AD2d 342 [2002]). Where the stipulation is “clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” (Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109 [1988]; see Perry v Perry, 13 AD3d 508, 509 [2004]; Douglas v Douglas, 7 AD3d 481,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rainbow v. SwisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Merl v. MerlNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Sieratzki v. SieratzkiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Clark v. ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Davis v. DavisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cellpoint Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Abidi v. AntohiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Aylsworth v. KowalczykAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Chalk v. ChalkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010