Opinion
January 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's argument that plaintiff's cause of action for breach of the stipulation of settlement did not include a claim that the defendant had failed to maintain the required life insurance policy, such claim having been clearly set forth in both plaintiff's notice to cure dated November 16, 1990 and the verified complaint. Inasmuch as defendant admits that he allowed the policy to lapse and did not reinstate it until after plaintiff commenced these enforcement proceedings, plaintiff was properly deemed to be a "successful" party on that issue, and as the stipulation contains no provision for apportioning attorney's fees in the event both parties are successful to some extent in enforcement proceedings, the IAS Court properly determined that each party should be responsible for his or her own legal fees (see, 72nd St. Assocs. v. Pyle, 105 A.D.2d 607, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 774).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.