Opinion
Argued April 25, 2000.
June 22, 2000.
Wachtel, Rabinowitz, Marshall, LLC, Hicksville, N.Y. (Gregory Rabinowitz of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. Tockman, Hicksville, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
In a matrimonial action, in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 26, 1996, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered December 24, 1998, which granted the plaintiff former husband's motion to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order of the same court (Phelan, J.), entered January 26, 1996.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which, inter alia, provided that the defendant was to receive 50% of the coverture portion of the plaintiff's pension benefits earned through the date of commencement of the action. Since the coverture portion was 71%, the defendant's one-half share was 35.5%. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to reflect this provision of the parties' agreement.
A stipulation of settlement entered into by spouses in contemplation of divorce is a contract subject to general principles of contract construction (see, Matter of Meccico v. Meccico, 76 N.Y.2d 822; Matter of Jenkins v. Jenkins, 260 A.D.2d 380). Where, as here, the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be found therein without resort to extrinsic evidence (see, Chimart Assoc. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570; Slatt v. Slatt, 64 N.Y.2d 966).