Herzfeld v Herzfeld
2008 NY Slip Op 03420 [50 AD3d 851]
April 15, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Frederica Herzfeld, Respondent,
v
William Herzfeld,Appellant.

[*1]Leonard R. Sperber, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

William L. Ostar, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 8, 1995,the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated May15, 2007, which denied his motion, inter alia, to enforce a provision of the parties' stipulation ofsettlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, regardingpayment of the children's college expenses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"A matrimonial settlement is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation. . . [and] a court should interpret the contract in accordance with its plain andordinary meaning" (Edwards v Poulmentis, 307 AD2d 1051, 1052 [2003]; seeGirardin v Girardin, 281 AD2d 457 [2001]). "[W]hen interpreting a contract, the courtshould arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the language employed bythe parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that theirreasonable expectations will be realized" (Fetner v Fetner, 293 AD2d 645, 645-646[2002] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Where such an agreement is clear andunambiguous on its face, the parties' intent must be construed from the four corners of theagreement, and not from extrinsic evidence (see Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d822 [1990]; Clark v Clark, 33 AD3d836, 837 [2006]; Matter of Jenkins v Jenkins, 260 AD2d 380 [1999]; Matter ofScalabrini v Scalabrini, 242 AD2d 725 [1997]). Here, the stipulation of settlement does notrequire the plaintiff to pay any of the college expenses of the parties' unemancipated children.The defendant's argument to the contrary is not supported by the language of the parties'stipulation.[*2]

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.