| Linsalato v Giuttari |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01448 [59 AD3d 682] |
| February 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Joseph Linsalato et al., Appellants, v James Giuttari,Respondent. |
—[*1] Ralph O. Heavner, Stony Point, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion and trespass, the plaintiffs appealfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated June 27, 2007,which denied their motion to enforce certain provisions of the parties' stipulation of settlement.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
A stipulation of settlement entered into in open court, with the parties and counsel present,and stenographically recorded, is enforceable as a contract binding on all the parties thereto, andis governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect (see Fukilman v 31st Ave. RealtyCorp., 39 AD3d 812, 813 [2007]; Blake v Blake, 229 AD2d 509 [1996];Bellefleur v Gervais, 201 AD2d 524 [1994]). Where the stipulation's terms areunambiguous, the parties' intent must be gleaned from the plain meaning of the words used bythe parties (see Fukilman v 31st Ave. Realty Corp., 39 AD3d at 813).
Here, the stipulation of settlement was placed on the record by counsel in open court, in thepresence of the parties, and was recorded by a court stenographer. The plaintiffs' counsel placedthe third part of the stipulation of settlement on the record as follows: "Number 3, the rocks thatcurrently exist in the land in dispute will be removed to the extent [*2]that they are located on what will be in the future the Linsalatoproperty, and those rocks will be put on Mr. Giuttari's property on the inside of the vinyl fenceon Mr. Giuttari's side of the property."
Here, the stipulation of settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, to which theparties unequivocally agreed, clearly and unambiguously provided that the rocks would beplaced on the defendant's side of the newly-drawn property line and the vinyl fence. Since thedefendant placed the vinyl fence in a location that left the rocks on the plaintiffs' side of thefence, he was in violation of the unambiguous terms of the stipulation of settlement. Contrary tothe defendant's contention, the "clarification" by the defendant's attorney did not change therequirement that the rocks be placed on the defendant's side of the newly-drawn property lineand the vinyl fence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce theprovisions of the stipulation of settlement regarding the placement of the rocks inside the vinylfence on the defendant's side of the property line. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ.,concur.