Order affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff contends that his obligation to pay alimony was extinguished by virtue of a cohabitation clause in a separation agreement which was incorporated, but not merged, into a judgment of divorce between the parties, and, therefore, that he is not a "defaulting party" within the meaning of section 244 Dom. Rel. of the Domestic Relations Law (cf. Zipparo v. Zipparo, 70 A.D.2d 616). Plaintiff, however, admittedly did not rely on his alleged contractual rights under the cohabitation clause when he ceased payment, and, in any event, has failed to raise any material issues of fact to show that defendant was actually cohabiting with another. As plaintiff was in default, and failed to show good cause for failure to make application for relief prior to accrual of arrears, the order should be affirmed (Domestic Relations Law, § 244). Titone, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.