Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that a settlement agreement is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation and that where the intention of the parties is clearly and unambiguously set forth, effect must be given to the intent as indicated by the language used. Moreover, it is equally well settled that an ambiguity should not be found where none in fact exists (see, Bono v Bono, 157 A.D.2d 763, 764).
In this case, the parties' stipulation of settlement was clear, concise, and unambiguous. The settlement was to include all the New York State DES cases that the plaintiff's counsel's law firm handled, and made no mention of any "third generation claims". Prior to the settlement, the subject "third generation claims" had been dismissed in New York by the Court of Appeals in Enright v Eli Lilly Co. ( 77 N.Y.2d 377, cert denied 501 U.S. 868). Accordingly, these "third generation claims" were properly excluded from the settlement by the court. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.