| Ackermann v Ackermann |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02335 [82 AD3d 1020] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Theresa Ackermann, Appellant, v William Ackermann,Respondent. |
—[*1] Reynolds, Caronia, Gianelli, Hagney, La Pinta & Quatela, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Peter R.Caronia of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered July 24,2009, as directed her to pay certain debt obligations pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation ofsettlement dated April 28, 2008, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs; and it is further,
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, counsel for the respective parties are directed toshow cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctionsand/or costs, if any, against the plaintiff and/or her counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) asthis Court may deem appropriate, by filing an original and four copies of their respectiveaffirmations or affidavits on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court and serving onecopy of the same on each other on or before April 25, 2011; and it is further,
Ordered that the Clerk of the Court, or his designee, is directed to serve counsel for therespective parties with a copy of this decision and order by regular mail.
"A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorceis a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation" (Rosenberger v Rosenberger, 63 AD3d898, 899 [2009]; see Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1990]).The terms thereof "operate as contractual obligations binding on the parties" (Nelson v Nelson, 75 AD3d 593,593 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] marital settlement is a 'contract subject toprinciples of contract interpretation [and] a court should interpret the contract in accordance withits plain and ordinary meaning' " (Rausov Rauso, 73 AD3d 888, 889 [2010], quoting Herzfeld v Herzfeld, 50 AD3d 851, 851 [2008]). "Where such anagreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned fromthe four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence" (Rosenberger vRosenberger, 63 AD3d at 899; see Matter of Meccico v [*2]Meccico, 76 NY2d at 824; Rauso v Rauso, 73 AD3d at889). "An ambiguity exists only where 'the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible tomore than one interpretation' " (Rosenberger v Rosenberger, 63 AD3d at 899, quotingChimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 [1986]).
Pursuant to the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement dated April 28, 2008, which wasincorporated but not merged into the judgment, the plaintiff expressly agreed to pay certain debtobligations, as fully set forth therein. The terms of the stipulation of settlement relating to thesubject debt obligations are clear and unambiguous and operate as contractual obligationsbinding on the parties. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly entered judgment in accordancewith those terms of the stipulation of settlement.
The conduct of the plaintiff and her attorney in pursuing the instant appeal appears to becompletely without merit in law or fact and it appears that it cannot be supported by a reasonableargument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or undertaken primarily todelay or prolong the resolution of litigation or to harass or maliciously injure another (see22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Tornheim vBlue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749, 750 [2010]; Palmieri v Thomas, 29 AD3d 658,659 [2006]). Accordingly, we direct counsel for the parties to submit affirmations or affidavits onthe issue of the imposition of sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the plaintiff and/or hercounsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Austin, JJ.,concur.