Ott v. Ott
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that the agreement of the parties settling their divorce requires defendant to pay maintenance as a percentage of his income as reported in box 5 of his W-2 statements. “The words and phrases used in an agreement must be given their plain meaning so as to define the rights of the parties” (Bottitta v Bottitta, 194 AD2d 510, 513). It is presumed that an agreement that is prepared…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Nau v. Vulcan Rail & Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Hickland v. HicklandNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Carlson-Subik v. SubikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Nee v. NeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- VTech Holdings Ltd. v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Redgrave v. RedgraveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Gentile v. GentileAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Stanley v. HainAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Rosenberg v. ErberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.