Plaintiff in this enforcement proceeding claims that defendant has continually interfered with her exclusive authority under the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their divorce judgment, to make decisions respecting the parties' children, and the appealed order directs defendant to refrain from such interference. Contrary to defendant's appellate argument, the Stipulation of Settlement does not evince any agreement by the parties to share custody of the children. Indeed, the parties agreed that plaintiff was to have "sole custody" of the children. That the Stipulation provides for prior consultation between the parties on matters concerning the children and for submission of parental disputes over such matters to a law guardian, does not detract from plaintiff's authority under the Stipulation as the ultimate decision maker.
Under the clear and unambiguous terms of the Stipulation, plaintiff was properly directed to pay his 75% share of the children's 2002-2003 school tuition and to pay maintenance, without deductions for common charges, on the former marital apartment. In addition, having, pursuant to the Stipulation, appointed Kenneth David Burrows as the children's law guardian in post-judgment proceedings, the court was clearly authorized to award Mr. Burrows legal fees without requiring him to commence a plenary action. The award to Mr. Burrows was proper notwithstanding the absence of a hearing upon his fee request, no hearing having been requested by defendant, who raised no complaint respecting the reasonableness of Mr. Burrow's fees or the need for his services ( see Isaacs v. Isaacs, 297 A.D.2d 608).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.