separation agreement bar in New York

1973(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 ; and, see, Haboush v. Haboush, 56 Misc 2d 666, 669 .) In Goldman v. Goldman ( 282 N. Y. 296, 305 ) the court pointed out ‘ ‘ that the direction of the court tha/t the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve the defendant of any contractual obligation.

1965The Appellate Division’s ground for decision was stated thus: “ A divorce decree may not be amended so as to provide alimony payments to the wife in excess of those fixed by the parties in a separation agreement where the amount of the alimony is incorporated in the decree and where the agreement is not merged in the decree (Schmelzel v. Schmelzel, 287 N. Y. 21 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296 ).” The Appellate Division’s statement that this separation agreement was not merged into the divorce judgment is clearly correct and is based on a provision in the separation agreement which in a cus

1973(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 ; and, see, Haboush v. Haboush, 56 Misc 2d 666, 669 .) In Goldman v. Goldman ( 282 N. Y. 296, 305 ) the court pointed out ‘ ‘ that the direction of the court tha/t the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve the defendant of any contractual obligation.

1968(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 .) Here there is no allegation of any modification of the Florida decree, actual or attempted (see Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296 ).

1973(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 ; and, see, Haboush v. Haboush, 56 Misc 2d 666, 669 .) In Goldman v. Goldman ( 282 N. Y. 296, 305 ) the court pointed out ‘ ‘ that the direction of the court tha/t the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve the defendant of any contractual obligation.

1968(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 .) Here there is no allegation of any modification of the Florida decree, actual or attempted (see Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296 ).

1951(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a. public charge.

1942(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a public charge.

1951(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a. public charge.

1942(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a public charge.

1951(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a. public charge.

1942(See Randolph v. Field, 165 App. Div. 279 ; Landes v. Landes, 172 App. Div. 758 ; Newport v. Newport, 131 Misc. 851 .) In my opinion, the same principle is applicable to a support proceeding in this court, whether or not petitioner be likely to become a public charge.

2012However, in Christian v Christian ( 42 NY2d 63, 65, 72 [1977]), the Court of Appeals wrote: “Marriage being a status with which the State is deeply concerned . . . courts have thrown their cloak of protection about separation agreements and made it their business, when confronted, ... to set aside or refuse to enforce those born of and subsisting in inequity.” In the case of P.B. v L.B. ( 19 Misc 3d 186 [Sup Ct, Richmond County 2008]), the trial court applied Gleason to a party’s challenge of a separation agreement clause preventing the husband from filing for divorce for five years after the

1985In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful also of a public policy favoring certainty in title to real property, both to protect bona fide purchasers and to avoid conflicts of ownership which may engender needless litigation (see, Barkenthien v People, 212 NY 36, 44 , rearg denied in opn 213 NY 554 ).

1985In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful also of a public policy favoring certainty in title to real property, both to protect bona fide purchasers and to avoid conflicts of ownership which may engender needless litigation (see, Barkenthien v People, 212 NY 36, 44 , rearg denied in opn 213 NY 554 ).

1979Bank Trust Co., 270 App Div 2 , affd 295 NY 945 ).

1979Bank Trust Co., 270 App Div 2 , affd 295 NY 945 ).

1973(Sureau v. Sureau, 280 App. Div. 927 , affd. 305 N. Y. 720 ; and, see, Haboush v. Haboush, 56 Misc 2d 666, 669 .) In Goldman v. Goldman ( 282 N. Y. 296, 305 ) the court pointed out ‘ ‘ that the direction of the court tha/t the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve the defendant of any contractual obligation.

1965The Appellate Division’s ground for decision was stated thus: “ A divorce decree may not be amended so as to provide alimony payments to the wife in excess of those fixed by the parties in a separation agreement where the amount of the alimony is incorporated in the decree and where the agreement is not merged in the decree (Schmelzel v. Schmelzel, 287 N. Y. 21 ; Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N. Y. 296 ).” The Appellate Division’s statement that this separation agreement was not merged into the divorce judgment is clearly correct and is based on a provision in the separation agreement which in a cus

1960Assuming the amendment of the answer, noncompliance with the visitation privileges provided by the separation agreement would bar a recovery of support (Mackay v. Mackay, 205 Misc. 470, 473 ; Magrill v. Magrill, 16 Misc 2d 896 ).

1960Assuming the amendment of the answer, noncompliance with the visitation privileges provided by the separation agreement would bar a recovery of support (Mackay v. Mackay, 205 Misc. 470, 473 ; Magrill v. Magrill, 16 Misc 2d 896 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).

1951It is held in cases in which the status of a surviving spouse unquestionably exists that a separation agreement can bar the assertion of normal rights against an estate (Matter of Wallace, 184 Misc. 448 , affd. 268 App. Div. 1029 ; Matter of Burridge, 261 N. Y. 225 ; Matter of Hagen, 119 Misc. 770 , affd. 206 App. Div. 682 ; Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 ; Matter of Gilmour, 146 Misc. 113 ).