Goldstein v. Plotnicki

—Order, Supreme Court,

The court properly directed compliance with the unambiguous terms of the parties’ settlement agreement without resort to extrinsic evidence (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157 , 162-163; Unisys Corp. v Hercules Inc., 224 AD2d 365 , 367; Sharp v Stavisky, 221 AD2d 216 , lv dismissed 87 NY2d 968 ). The agreement as a whole, including the appraisal process set forth therein, establishes that the parties intended a transfer of title to intellectual property valued at $250,000. Appellant’s argument that the settlement only granted petitioner a license to intellectual property rights until petitioner earned $250,000 is not supported by the agreement which makes no reference to a license and does not temporally limit the rights transferred. If the rights transferred were to be limited to a specific period, language to that effect should have been included in the settlement agreement (see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562 , 571-572). In the absence of any ambiguity, the court was not required to consider extrinsic evidence of appellant’s expert, and no evidentiary hearing was required (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, supra). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.