DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Supreme Court did not, in the guise of interpreting the parties' collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the agreement), rewrite provisions of the agreement. It is well established that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a function for the, court and matters extrinsic to the agreement may not be considered when the intent of the parties can be gleaned from the four corners of the document ( see W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157). In short, the proper aim of the court is to arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties, and to reach a "practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties to the end that there be a `realization of [their] reasonable expectations'" ( Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v. Beam Constr. Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 397, 400, quoting 1 Corbin, Contracts, § 1). The Supreme Court properly determined that in reviewing and interpreting the plain language contained within the four corners of the agreement, Article X, section C of the agreement, when read in conjunction with Article II, section G of the agreement, clearly and unambiguously permitted the respondent Patchogue-Medford School District (hereinafter the School District) to involuntarily transfer the petitioner Ronald Hughes from his daytime position as a custodian at the Patchogue-Medford High School to the night shift at the School District's elementary school due to an altercation with a student at the high school.
Furthermore, the School District's determination to transfer Hughes was not arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of Lyons v. Whitehead, 291 A.D.2d 497).
PRUDENTI, P.J., S. MILLER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.