Opinion
February 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Plaintiff was the "substantially successful party" and defendants' argument that this action does not arise under the Separation Agreement is without merit. The complaint clearly seeks a declaration of plaintiff's rights under the child support provisions of the amended Separation Agreement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' divorce decree, and the August 20, 1993 agreement was executed in anticipation of the settlement of defendant Sitomer's claims thereunder. Accordingly, the parties are bound by the plain language of the amended Separation Agreement, which provides for the payment of attorneys' fees to the substantially successful party (see, Haskin v. Mendler, 184 A.D.2d 372, 373; Canick v. Canick, 122 A.D.2d 767, 769).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.