From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karafiol v. Karafiol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1999
259 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In the parties' stipulation of settlement the defendant agreed to pay the cost of their children's private school. Subsequently, the plaintiff placed her son in a private boarding school and sought to have the defendant pay for the tuition as well as the room and board. The defendant contended that because he was already paying child support, which included funds for the child's room and board, he should not be required to make separate payments for the child's room and board at the school.

The court properly determined that the parties' stipulation of settlement should be interpreted to require payment for tuition alone on the part of the defendant. "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 corners of the contract, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations" ( Slamow v. Delcol, 174 A.D.2d 725, 726, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016; see also, W.W.W Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157). The intent of the parties as evidenced in the stipulation of settlement supports a finding that the parties did not intend the defendant to pay for room and board in addition to the child support payments made by the defendant.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Karafiol v. Karafiol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1999
259 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Karafiol v. Karafiol

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN KARAFIOL, Appellant, v. PAUL KARAFIOL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

REIDT v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NY, INC.

Plaintiff also alleges that COSIAstoria, Constellation and Astoria Generating acted as either agents of…

County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.

When the contractual terms are clear and unambiguous, New York enforces the intent of the parties as gleaned…