Opinion
March 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The amended separation agreement entered into by the parties provided that in the event their mentally retarded son shall become unemployed, both parties shall be equally responsible for his support. Special Term correctly interpreted the plain wording of that agreement to require that the parties equally contribute to the support of their son when he ceased working for the defendant's company (see, Sutton v. East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 554; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Shields Detective Bur., 121 A.D.2d 587, 589).
There is no dispute that the son ceased working on February 11, 1985. The agreement did not require the plaintiff to establish "good cause" for the son's termination of employment. We further note that the trial court's denial of the defendant's application for an adjournment of the trial was not an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Patricia L. v. Steven L., 119 A.D.2d 221, 226; Cuevas v. Cuevas, 110 A.D.2d 873, 877). Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.