After full consideration of respondent Ross's contentions in opposition to the motion to confirm the Referee's report, we find that the report was properly confirmed, since it was amply supported by the record (see,Stark v. Reliance Natl. Indem. Co., 273 A.D.2d 148). We decline to find the language of the 1996 agreement ambiguous on the basis of the interpretation urged by respondent that would strain the contract language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning (see, Consolidated Edison Co. v. United Coastal Ins. Co., 216 A.D.2d 137, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 808). Since the agreement is in plain and unambiguous language, there is no need to resort to consideration of the subsequent course of dealings of the parties (see, Gottlieb v. 180 Hartsdale Assocs., 119 A.D.2d 542, 544), which, in any event, would not warrant rejection of the referee's findings. Since respondent Ross's arguments urging reformation on the ground of mistake are made for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider either mutual mistake (see, Lippes v. Bradley, 203 A.D.2d 959) or unilateral mistake (see, Emblem v. Juras, 112 A.D.2d 134, 135). In any event, were we to consider them, we would find them meritless. We have considered respondent-appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.