Opinion
June 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that the maintenance provisions of the agreement in issue are not ambiguous, that their clear intent was to provide plaintiff with additional maintenance above a stated minimum in the event defendant's income exceeded a stated minimum, and that defendant's reading of the agreement would "nullify" this basic purpose by actually decreasing the maintenance payment below the stated minimum even as defendant's income increased above the stated minimum (see, Silver v Silver, 12 A.D.2d 325, affd 10 N.Y.2d 1000). We also agree with the IAS Court that the agreement is unambiguous in requiring defendant to continue paying the mortgage and other carrying charges on certain property even after transfer of title to plaintiff following the divorce. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.