Majority
It is well settled that, where the parties have executed a valid stipulation or agreement, a domestic relations order may convey only those rights and awards upon which the parties agreed (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 , 304 [2002]; Smith v Smith, 59 AD3d 905 , 906 [2009]). A “stipulation of settlement that is incorporated into a divorce judgment ‘is an independent contract, subject to the principles of contract interpretation’ ” (LaPierre v LaPierre, 84 AD3d 1497 , 1498 [2011], quoting Ross v Ross, 16 AD3d 713 , 714 [2005]). As such, if the language of a stipulation is unambiguous, its terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the parties’ intent is determined without resort to extrinsic evidence (see Smith v Smith, 59 AD3d at 906 ; Ross v Ross, 16 AD3d at 714 ; Stevens v Stevens, 11 AD3d 791 , 792 [2004]). Whether language is ambiguous is a matter of law to be determined by the court (see Hendrix v Hendrix, 2 AD3d 1257 , 1258 [2003]; Su v Su, 268 AD2d 945 , 946 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 752 [2000]), and in rendering this determination a court may not “add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used” (Smith v Smith, 59 AD3d at 906 [internal quota
We agree with Supreme Court that the language of the parties’ stipulation explicitly provides defendant with survivor benefits. The agreement provides that “[plaintiff] shall opt to have said pension throughout the life of [defendant] and [plaintiff].” Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, this provision can only be read as providing defendant with survivor benefits in plaintiffs pension; as defendant’s interest in plaintiffs pension is measured “throughout” his own life, and not just plaintiffs life, the plain meaning of this term in the stipulation is that plaintiff must choose a pension option that ensures lifetime benefits to defendant (compare Casella v Casella, 306 AD2d 800 , 801 [2003]; De Gaust v De Gaust, 237 AD2d 862 , 863 [1997]).
Mercure, A.P.J., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- McCoy v. Feinman 99 NY2d 295 at 304 p. 1260
- Smith v. Smith 59 AD3d 905 at 906 p. 1260
- LaPierre v. LaPierre 84 AD3d 1497 at 1498 p. 1260
- Ross v. Ross 16 AD3d 713 at 714 p. 1260
- Stevens v. Stevens 11 AD3d 791 at 792 p. 1260
- Su v. Su 268 AD2d 945 at 946 p. 1260
- Casella v. Casella 306 AD2d 800 at 801 p. 1261
- De Gaust v. De Gaust 237 AD2d 862 at 863 p. 1261