Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Because [a] [s]ettlement [a]greement is a contract between the parties, it must be construed according to ordinary contract law" ( Matter of Lyons v Whitehead, 291 AD2d 497, 499). The court must "determine the intention of the parties as derived from the language employed in the contract, [and it] should strive to give a fair and reasonable meaning to the language used" ( Abiele Contr. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 NY2d 1, 9-10; see Lyons v Whitehead, supra at 499). Here, based on the clear meaning of the language, the Supreme Court properly interpreted the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was not the prevailing party because it was not successful with respect to the central relief sought ( see Village of Hempstead v Taliercio, 8 AD3d 476). Therefore, it was not entitled to an attorney's fee pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee.