Opinion
CA 02-01999
February 7, 2003.
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Egan, J.), entered December 11, 2001, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to terminate maintenance.
GOULD, PECK METZLER LLP, ROCHESTER (ERIC J. METZLER OF COUNSEL), For Plaintiff-appellant-respondent.
ROSS GOULD-ROSS, ROCHESTER (BETTE M. GOULD-ROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
"A separation agreement entered into by the parties in a divorce proceeding constitutes a contract between them which will be enforced according to its terms" (Gagstetter v. Gagstetter, 283 A.D.2d 393, 395). Where, as here, the intent of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth in the agreement, "effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used" (Slatt v. Slatt, 64 N.Y.2d 966, 967, rearg denied 65 N.Y.2d 785; see Fetner v. Fetner, 293 A.D.2d 645, 645-646). Supreme Court properly determined that, pursuant to the terms of the separation agreement, the obligation of plaintiff to pay spousal maintenance of $800 per month continues until he attains age 62 and ceases his employment with Xerox. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of defendant's cross motion seeking counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 238).