Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the stipulations of settlement, concluding that the sum set forth in each was to be paid without interest. The stipulations are identical in all respects except for the monetary terms, and are definite and complete on their face (see, Term Indus. v Essbee Estates, 88 A.D.2d 823). Therefore, it is unnecessary to go beyond the stipulations to ascertain the intent of the parties, for the intent is to be found in the terms of the stipulations (see, Josephs v Josephs, 78 Misc.2d 723, 727). Paragraph 2 of the stipulation entered into in the first action obligated the defendant to make monthly payments of $750. Paragraph 2 of the stipulation entered into in the second action obligated the defendant to make monthly payments of $1,000. Paragraph 2 of both stipulations were silent as to interest. However, paragraph 4, the default provision in both stipulations, clearly signifies that the parties intended that interest would be paid only upon the defendant's default.
We further find that there is no indication of fraud, over-reaching, mistake or any other good cause which would permit this court to relieve the plaintiff from the consequences of the stipulations (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149-150; Matter of Gruntz, 168 A.D.2d 558; McClain Realty v Rivers, 144 A.D.2d 216).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.