| Colon v Rite Fold Corp. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03450 [106 AD3d 862] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carmen Colon, Appellant, v Rite Fold Corp. et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Patrick Murphy ofcounsel), for respondent Rite Fold Corp. James J. Toomey, New York, N.Y. (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for respondentAudrey Penza Kuber.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated November 9, 2011, whichgranted the defendants' separate motions to enforce a settlement agreement dated May12, 2011, and denied her cross motion, in effect, to vacate the settlement agreement andrestore the action to the trial calendar.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside"(Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). "To be enforceable,stipulations of settlement must conform to the requirements of CPLR 2104. Pursuant toCPLR 2104, a stipulation of settlement is not enforceable unless it is made in open court,reduced to a court order and entered, or contained in a writing subscribed by the partiesor their attorneys" (Peralta v AllWeather Tire Sales & Serv., Inc., 58 AD3d 822, 822 [2009] [citations andinternal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, the requirements of CPLR 2104 have been satisfied, as the parties' settlementagreement is contained in a writing subscribed by the parties' attorneys. The plaintiff'scontention that the defendants abandoned the settlement agreement is contradicted by therecord (cf. Bercow vDamus, 5 AD3d 711, 712 [2004]). Moreover, the record is devoid of anyevidence of "duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake" (Haynes v Garez, 304AD2d 714, 715 [2003]). The plaintiff's unsubstantiated claims that she lacked sufficienttime to deliberate and was overly medicated when she agreed to accept the defendants'settlement offer do not entitle her to relief "from the consequences of a stipulation madeduring litigation" (Hallock v State, 64 NY2d at 230; see Desantis v Ariens Co., 17AD3d 311 [2005]; Belchou v Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 126 AD2d 506[1987]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separatemotions to enforce the settlement agreement and properly denied the plaintiff's crossmotion, in effect, to vacate the settlement agreement and restore the [*2]action to the trial calendar. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Romanand Miller, JJ., concur.