Graev v. Graev

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that the term "cohabitation" in the parties' settlement agreement was ambiguous because neither dictionaries nor New York case law supplied a uniform meaning. The court reversed and remitted the case for further proceedings, including consideration of extrinsic evidence concerning the parties' intent regarding termination of spousal support.

Holdings

1. The term "cohabitation" was ambiguous as used in the settlement agreement; neither dictionary definitions nor New York case law supplied an authoritative plain meaning.
2. Cohabitation under the settlement agreement was not necessarily determined by whether the couple shared household expenses or functioned as a single economic unit.
3. Because the contractual term was ambiguous, the case had to be remitted for further proceedings allowing consideration of extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the term "cohabitation" in the parties' settlement agreement had a definite plain meaning requiring shared household expenses or an economic unit.
2. Whether the term "cohabitation" was ambiguous and therefore required consideration of extrinsic evidence concerning the parties' intent.
3. Whether the case should be remitted for further proceedings to determine the contractual meaning of cohabitation and whether the wife's conduct satisfied that meaning.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded