Howard v. Howard
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A. (2d Cir. 2014)
- WM Capital Partners 85, LLC v. Cashman Equipment Corp. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2024)
- Wythe Berry Fee Owner LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- 1701 Commerce Acquisition, LLC v. MacQuarie US Trading, LLC (Tex. App. 2022)
- Alantra LLC v. Apex Industrial Technologies LLC (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2022)
- Catholic United Investment Trust v. CoBank, ACB (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Catholic United Investment Trust v. CoBank, ACB (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- In re Trusts Established Under the Pooling & Servicing Agreements Relating to the Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortg. Trust Commercial Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2019)
- Bank Leumi USA v. Ehrlich (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Development Specialists, Inc. v. Peabody Energy Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
- In re East End Development, LLC (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Walmart Inc. v. Capital One, National Association (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Red Apple 86 Fleet Place Dev., LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2d Cir. 2024)
- Catalano v. MarineMax (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Streb Inc (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Ricatto v. M3 Innovations Unlimited, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Brennan v. Brennan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 15, 1999, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, JJ, dated July 2, 2001, as denied that branch of his motion which was to hold the plaintiff in contempt of court.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A stipulation of settlement is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation (see, Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106). It is the primary rule of construction of contracts that when the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four comers of the contract, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties’ reasonable expectations (see, Slamow v Del Col, 174 AD2d 725, 726, affd 79 NY2d 1016; see also, W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162; Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570).
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that he agreed that his weekday overnight visitation with the parties’ child would end upon the child entering the second grade. Accordingly, there was no basis to grant his motion to hold the child’s mother in contempt. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.