In Graev v. Graev, 11 N.Y.3d 262, 898 N.E.2d 909, 869 N.Y.S.2d 866 [2008] the Court of Appeals of the State of New York was presented with the issue of the meaning of the term "cohabitation" in the context of a matrimonial agreement. In Graev v. Graev the word "cohabitation" was not specifically defined in the parties' settlement agreement. Both parties provided competing definitions found in New York case law and legal dictionaries. Ms. Graev argued that "cohabitation" was a "plain meaning" term, despite the numerous possible definitions and that the Court could apply the definition provided by case law. Mr. Greav contended that "cohabitation" was an ambiguous term and that extrinsic evidence was needed to define it in the agreement. The Court of Appeals found that " . . . neither the dictionary nor New York case law supplied an authoritative or "plain" meaning." of the term "cohabitation." (Graev v. Graev, 11 N.Y.3d 262, 271, 898 N.E.2d 909, 869 N.Y.S.2d 866 supra). The court noted the word was "sufficiently ambiguous to have been interpreted so variously by the courts." (Id at 274, FN 4). The court further noted that "without extrinsic evidence as to the parties' intent, there is no way to assess the particular factors inerrant in the dictionary meanings or case law discussions of cohabitation' the parties may have meant to embrace or emphasize." (Id, at 274).