| Nigro v Nigro |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07825 [44 AD3d 831] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George W. Nigro, Respondent, v Albert A. Nigro,Appellant. |
—[*1] Law Office of Christopher L. Grayson, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to enforce a stipulation of settlement, the defendant appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), entered October 10, 2006,which, upon so much of an order of the same court dated July 13, 2006, as granted that branch ofthe plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and againsthim directing him to specifically perform the terms of the stipulation.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside, particularlywhen the parties are represented by attorneys (see Hallock v State of New York, 64NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Matter of Stark, 233 AD2d 450 [1996]; Heimuller v AmocoOil Co., 92 AD2d 882 [1983]). "This is all the more so in the case of 'open court' stipulations(Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 10 [1972]) within CPLR 2104, where strictenforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to themanagement of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process" (Hallock v State ofNew York, 64 NY2d at 230). "Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract,such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of astipulation made during litigation" (id.; see also Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143,149-150 [1971]; Matter of Davis, 292 AD2d 452 [2002]).
In the case at bar, the defendant failed to present any evidence that the subject [*2]stipulation, whereby the parties settled the defendant's partitioncause of action, was the result of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident sufficient to invalidate acontract (see Matter of Marquez, 299 AD2d 551 [2002]). Furthermore, contrary to thedefendant's contention, the stipulation, which was stated in open court between respectivecounsel in the presence of both parties, is enforceable under the "open court exception" set forthin CPLR 2104 (DeVita v Macy's E.,Inc., 36 AD3d 751 [2007]; see Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d at 1; Storette v Storette, 11 AD3d 365[2004]; Matter of Gruntz, 168 AD2d 558 [1990]).
Accordingly, since the plaintiff demonstrated that the parties stipulated to settle the partitioncause of action, and since the defendant did not show the existence of any material questions offact regarding this issue, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment to enforce the settlement (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d320 [1986]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Florio andDillon, JJ., concur.