AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

MARY STEVENOT, Now Known as MARY A. ALPERT, Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENOT, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The dispute herein concerns the alleged breach by the custodial parent of an oral contract assertedly made before and reiterated during the marital relationship to raise the infant issue in the Congregational Church.

The record reveals that no writing evidences this asserted agreement and that no mention of the children's religious upbringing is set forth in the judgment of divorce, or a later judgment dated January 4, 1985, dealing with permanent custody. Although the appellant denies ever having made such an agreement, the hearing court found that such an oral agreement existed. This, however, does not resolve the dispute.

Absent agreement, the court will not interfere with the religious upbringing of children (People ex rel. Sisson v Sisson, 271 N.Y. 285; People ex rel. Portnoy v. Strasser, 303 N.Y. 539). An oral agreement entered into prior to and during the marital relationship is not binding upon the custodial parent following judicial dissolution of the marriage if its terms have not been reduced to a writing or included in a stipulation of settlement, divorce judgment, or custody determination (see, Schwarzman v. Schwarzman, 88 Misc.2d 866). Agreements between divorcing spouses with respect to the upbringing of the issue will be upheld by the courts when incorporated into separation agreements, court orders or signed stipulations (see, Gluckstern v. Gluckstern, 4 N.Y.2d 521; Garvar v. Faltings, 54 A.D.2d 971; Spring v. Glawon, 89 A.D.2d 980). In this case, the oral agreement entered into prior to and reiterated during the marriage did not contemplate a postdivorce status and is, therefore, not binding on the parties (Schwarzman v. Schwarzman, supra). Since no such agreement exists, the custodial parent is the proper party to determine the children's religious training (see, People ex rel. Sisson v. Sisson, supra; Matter of Paolella v. Phillips, 27 Misc.2d 763). Mollen, P.J., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STEVENOT v. STEVENOT
(Oct 26, 1987)