The following papers numbered 1 to 7 were read on Defendant’s application for a declaration construing the parties’ oral stipulation, made in open court on June 25, 2024, relative to the custody of their minor children: Order to Show Cause — Affirmations (2) / Exhibits 1-3 Affirmations in Opposition (2) / Exhibits 4-5 Reply Affirmations (2) / Exhibit 6-7 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers it is ORDERED that the application is disposed of as follows: THE STIPULATION This is a contested matrimonial action. On June 25, 2024, the parties placed an oral stipulation ( the “Stipulation”) relative to the custody of their two young children on the record in open court. The transcript of the proceeding was “so ordered” by the Court. So far as pertains to the dispute presently before the Court, the transcript states as follows: Ms. Gallo: Your Honor, I believe that we reached a settlement based on what the AFC has told us…. I do believe that we can probably put the bullet points of the settlement on the record, but it will be subject to a complete custody and access stipulation that we would then ask the Court to so order. …… The Court: Is it the parties’ intention that the bullet points will be controlling unless or until a formal document is executed? Ms. Gallo: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: Okay. Is that your understanding as well? Ms. Dewbury: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: All right. And, Mr. Deurso, is that your understanding as well? Mr. Deurso: Yes, Judge, that’s my understanding. …… Ms. Gallo: The parties in this matter will have joint legal custody of the two minor children, L.S. and Lu. S. The parties are going to utilize John Pappalardo as a parent coordinator solely for major decisions of health, education and religion…. There will also be — the parties will be guided by the recommendation of the PC in making major decisions. And the party who the PC is in agreement with will be able to implement their decision subject to the other party’s right to seek a stay from a court of competent jurisdiction…. With respect to the residential custody of the children, the Plaintiff will have primary residential custody of the children subject to the Defendant’s access schedule with the children which will be as follows:…. (Transcript, June 25, 2024, pp. 4-6) DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION Plaintiff thereafter took unilateral action with respect to the children which Defendant claims violated his rights under the Stipulation as a parent enjoying joint legal custody of the children. Defendant in consequence filed the present application for an order as follows: 1. Declaring and/or directing that the parties’ June 25, 2024 joint custody agreement, which was “So Ordered” by this Court: (a) requires the parties to engage in good faith consultation (email exchanges to suffice) regarding all important or major decisions (hereinafter “Major Decisions”) concerning the parties’ two minor children…prior to the [i] submission of unresolved Major Decisions related to the health, education and religion of/for the Children to the parties’ agreed on parent coordinator; and [ii] implementation of any other Major Decisions concerning the Children; (b) precludes either party from unilaterally implementing any Major Decisions absent the issuance of a recommendation by the parties’ agreed on parent coordinator (related to the health, education and religion of/for the Children) or without the express written consent or agreement of the other party regarding any other Major Decisions concerning the Children; 2. Declaring that Major Decisions concerning the Children include health, education and religious decisions of the Children, as well as decisions or issues relating to dental, therapeutic, psychiatric, extracurricular activities (both school related and activities unrelated to school), summer camp, summer programs, day care, day care facilities, and tutoring of/for the Children; 3. Declaring that if either party unilaterally implements any Major Decisions concerning the Children without the express written consent of the other party or the issuance of a recommendation by the parties’ agreed on parent coordinator with regard to health, education and religious decisions concerning the Children, the other party shall not be required to contribute to the cost of any unilaterally implemented Major Decisions…Plaintiff in opposition asserts that the Stipulation unambiguously restricts “Major Decisions” to those concerning “health, education and religion.” LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The Construction of Matrimonial Settlement Agreements A matrimonial settlement agreement is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation. See, Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109 (1988). The rule applies to oral stipulations placed on the record in open court: “[a]n oral stipulation of settlement that is made in open court…is enforceable as a contract and is governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect; [t]he role of the court is to determine the intent and purpose of the stipulation based on an examination of the record as a whole.” Scherer v. North Shore Car Wash Corp., 72 AD3d 927, 929 (2d Dept. 2010); Koppie v. Koppie, 62 AD3d 666, 667 (2d Dept. 2009); Flannery v. Flannery, 54 AD3d 804 (2d Dept. 2008). The plain text of the agreement is the best source of the parties’ intent. See, Goldman v. White Plains Center for Nursing Care, 11 NY3d 173, 176 (2008); Burns v. Burns, 163 AD3d 210, 213 (4th Dept. 2018). “Where…the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence (Nichols v. Nichols, 306 NY 490, 496…).” Rainbow v. Swisher, supra, 72 NY2d at 109. B. The Parties’ Positions Here, however, the parties offer conflicting interpretations of the Stipulation. According to Defendant: The parties in this matter agreed to share joint legal custody of the Children. Neither has final decision-making authority and neither has the unilateral right to implement any important or major decisions regarding the children…[J]oint legal custody encompasses more than only the health, education and religious decisions that the parties agreed to submit to a parenting coordinator in the absence of an agreement between themselves. (Kesten Aff.
