| DeWitt v DeWitt |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03861 [62 AD3d 744] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Everett DeWitt, Appellant, v Antoinette DeWitt, AlsoKnown as Antoinette Giampietro, Respondent. |
—[*1] Antoinette DeWitt Giampietro, Lake Grove, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 5,1997, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(McNulty, J.), dated February 15, 2008, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his motion whichwas to terminate certain pension payments made to the defendant pursuant to a qualifieddomestic relations order of the same court entered December 10, 1997.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff former husband and the defendant former wife were divorced in 1997, afterapproximately nine years of marriage. On January 30, 1997, the parties entered into a stipulationof settlement which provided, inter alia, that the defendant was "entitled to a 50% share of themarital portion" of the plaintiff's pension with the New York State Firemen and Policemen'sRetirement System. The stipulation also contained a general provision relating to the equitabledistribution of property, wherein the defendant waived "any and all claims, legal or equitable, toany interest, value or equity" of the plaintiff and assigned to the plaintiff "all claims. . . in his pension." On December 10, 1997, a qualified domestic relations orderwas entered upon the stipulation. In 2007 the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to terminate certainpension payments made to the defendant pursuant to the qualified domestic relations order,arguing, among other things, that the clauses in the stipulation relating to the pension werecontradictory and "should be deemed invalid." In the order appealed from, the Supreme Courtdenied that branch of his motion. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.[*2]
A settlement agreement is a contract subject to principlesof contract interpretation (see Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109 [1988]). "Wherethere is an inconsistency between a specific provision and a general provision of a contract, thespecific provision controls" (Aguirre v City of New York, 214 AD2d 692, 693 [1995]).Here, the specific provision relating to the defendant's entitlement to a "50% share of the maritalportion" of the pension is controlling.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or cannot be determined on thisrecord. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.