NOACH v. NOACH

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 25, 2007, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 17, 2007, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

When interpreting a contract, such as a prenuptial agreement ( see Bloomfield v Bloomfield, 97 NY2d 188, 193; Slatt v Slatt, 64 NY2d 966, 967), "the court should arrive at a construction that will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized" ( Matter of Schiano v Hirsch, 22 AD3d 502, 502; see Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566; Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106, 109; Clark v Clark, 33 AD3d 836, 837; Sieratzki v Sieratzki, 8 AD3d 552, 554). Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs contentions regarding the equitable award are without merit ( see Sherman v Sherman, 304 AD2d 744; Rubin v Rubin, 262 AD2d 390, 391; Goddard v Goddard, 256 AD2d 545, 547).