| Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03437 [50 AD3d 875] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Racanelli Construction Company, Inc.,Respondent, v Tadco Construction Corp., Appellant, and Centennial InsuranceCompany, Respondent. |
—[*1] Agovino & Asselta, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Mark I. Zelko of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent. Gottesman, Wolgel, Malamy, Flynn & Weinberg, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven Weinbergof counsel; Eileen Daly on the brief), for defendant-respondent.
In an action to enforce a stipulation of settlement, the defendant Tadco Construction Corp.appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered May 4, 2007,which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate an oral stipulation of settlement and the resultingjudgment entered September 28, 2006.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of 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 [*2]process" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d at 230)."Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake oraccident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation"(Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d at 230; see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d143, 149-150; Matter of Davis, 292 AD2d 452 [2002]).
In the case at bar, the defendant Tadco Construction Corp. (hereinafter Tadco) failed to showthat there was cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, oraccident (see Matter of Marquez, 299 AD2d 551 [2002]). Furthermore, contrary toTadco's contention, the stipulation, which was stated in open court between respective counsel inthe presence of all parties, is enforceable under the "open court exception" set forth in CPLR2104 (see Storette v Storette, 11AD3d 365 [2004]; Matter of Gruntz, 168 AD2d 558 [1990]; DeVita v Macy's E., Inc., 36 AD3d751 [2007]; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d at 1).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Tadco's motion whichwere to vacate the oral stipulation of settlement and the resulting judgment entered September28, 2006.
Tadco's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Miller, Carni and Dickerson,JJ., concur.