Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the stay pending appeal granted by decision and order of this Court on motion dated June 27, 1994, is vacated forthwith, and the father's attorney is directed to release the sum of $3,200 from escrow to the mother.
It is well settled that a separation agreement entered into by spouses in contemplation of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation (see, Rainbow v Swisher, 72 N.Y.2d 106; see also, Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 N.Y.2d 822). A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction, nor may it construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract's apparent meaning (see, Slamow v Del Col, 174 A.D.2d 725, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016; Tantleff v Truscelli, 110 A.D.2d 240, affd 69 N.Y.2d 769). The words and phrases used in an agreement must be given their plain meaning so as to define the rights of the parties (see, Laba v Carey, 29 N.Y.2d 302; Levine v Shell Oil Co., 28 N.Y.2d 205).
Here, the Family Court correctly determined that pursuant to the terms of the parties' separation agreement which had been incorporated into the judgment of divorce, the father was obligated to reimburse the mother the sum of $3,200 that she expended to send the child to summer camp in 1993.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court was acting within its jurisdiction by entertaining the mother's petition (see, Matter of Silane v Silane, 173 A.D.2d 708; Matter of Cohen v Seletsky, 142 A.D.2d 111; Matter of Reeves v Samson, 105 A.D.2d 1040).
We find no merit to the father's remaining contentions. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.