Opinion
March 31, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.).
The parties' separation agreement provides for three events that will reduce monthly maintenance and support payments without limit and separately provides for three other events that will reduce such payments to a limit of $800 a month for each unemancipated child. The IAS court correctly construed the plain meaning of this agreement in declining to apply the $800 limit to the first set of events (see, Cunningham v Cunningham, 169 A.D.2d 451). Respondent may not avoid the unambiguous terms of the agreement "`merely because it subsequently appears to have been a bad bargain'" (Barzin v Barzin, 158 A.D.2d 769, 770, lv dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 834, quoting 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 2104.05). We have reviewed respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.