DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal from the order is treated as an application for leave to appeal from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and leave to appeal is granted ( see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is modified, on the law, by deleting from the fourth-numbered paragraph thereof the words "April 20, 2001," and substituting therefor the words "July 31, 2001"; as so modified, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
On April 20, 2001, the parties executed a separation agreement which was subsequently incorporated, but not merged, into a judgment of divorce dated July 31, 2001. The agreement provided, inter alia, for an equal division of the defendant's interest in a savings stock pension plan to be effectuated by a qualified domestic relations order issued contemporaneously with the divorce judgment. The qualified domestic relations order was, however, not issued until September 12, 2003, at which time the defendant former husband moved, in effect, to value the parties' respective distributive awards as of the date of distribution.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that in accordance with the terms of the parties' separation agreement, the plaintiff's distributive share of the pension plan should be valued as of the date of the July 31, 2001, judgment.
"The first and best rule of construction of every contract, and the only rule we need here, is that when the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found therein * * * The applicability, to separation agreements, of that fundamental rule, has been affirmed by this court on several occasions" ( Nichols v. Nichols, 306 N.Y. 490, 496; Herr v. Herr, 5 A.D.3d 550). Absent a showing of fraud, overreaching, mistake or duress, a stipulation of settlement should not be disturbed ( see O'Beirne v. O'Beirne, 5 A.D.3d 572). Nor may a court, under the guise of interpretation, imply a provision the parties chose to omit ( see Herr v. Herr supra; Simmons v. Simmons, 305 A.D.2d 661; Dreiss v. Dreiss, 258 A.D.2d 499, 500).
There is no evidence to support the defendant's claim that the parties intended to value the plaintiff's interest in the pension plan upon distribution ( see O'Beirne v. O'Beirne, supra; Biglin v. Biglin, 2 A.D.3d 380, 381; Simmons v. Simmons, supra; Moran v. Moran, 289 A.D.2d 544, 545; Pollack v. Pollack, 288 A.D.2d 201; Dreiss v. Dreiss, supra; McWade v. McWade, 253 A.D.2d 798, 799; Wieners v. Wieners, 239 A.D.2d 493, 494).
The Qualified Domestic Relations Order is, however, inconsistent with the order dated September 12, 2003, separation agreement dated April 20, 2001, and the judgment dated July 31, 2001, in that it contains a valuation date of April 20, 2001, instead of July 31, 2001. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order must therefore be modified accordingly ( see Biglin v. Biglin, supra at 381).
S. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.