Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gary Solomon, appellant, v. Nancy Solomon, respondent.
Submitted-May 11, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 29, 2008, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated May 6, 2009, as, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to enforce the provision of the parties' stipulation of settlement dated April 25, 2008, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, which fixed the valuation date of the marital portion of their respective retirement accounts at 30 days following the date of execution of the stipulation of settlement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A stipulation of settlement in a matrimonial action is a contract “subject to principles of contract interpretation” (Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 N.Y.2d 106, 109; see DeWitt v. DeWitt, 62 AD3d 744, 745; Micciche v. Micciche, 62 AD3d 673, 673; Oakes v. Oakes, 38 AD3d 865, 865). “The first and best rule of construction of every contract, and the only rule we need here, is that, when the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found therein” (Ernst v. Ernst, 8 AD3d 331, 332 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
In this case, the parties' stipulation of settlement clearly and unambiguously fixed the valuation date of the marital portion of their respective retirement accounts at 30 days from the date of execution of the stipulation. The Supreme Court properly rejected the plaintiff's contention that the appropriate valuation date was the date of distribution of the subject accounts (id. at 332-333).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, ANGIOLILLO and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-05916 (Index No. 19137 /07)
Decided: June 01, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)