| Stein v Stein |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05661 [130 AD3d 604] |
| July 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Andrew Stein, Respondent, v Emily Stein,Appellant. |
Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Evan Wiederkehr ofcounsel), for appellant.
Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Mosberg andAllan E. Mayefsky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colleen D. Duffy,J.), entered January 3, 2014. The order, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion to enforcea stipulation of settlement to the extent of directing the defendant to execute a listingagreement with a real estate broker for the sale of the former marital residence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement (hereinafter the stipulation), whichprovided that the parties would sell the former marital residence using a mutually agreedupon broker. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to enforce the stipulation on the ground thatthe defendant failed to cooperate in selling the property. In opposition to the motion, thedefendant contended that the parties disagreed on the procedure to sell the house and thatthis disagreement was subject to arbitration under the stipulation. In the order appealedfrom, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to the extent of directing thedefendant to execute a listing agreement with a real estate broker who agreed to waive acommission if the marital residence was sold to either party, allowed the defendant tohire an appraiser, and awarded the defendant a right of first refusal to purchase themarital residence at an amount in excess of a bona fide offer or an appraisal value. Thedefendant appeals.
"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside. . . . Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such asfraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of astipulation made during litigation" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224,230 [1984] [citations omitted]; see Caroli v Allstate Ins. Co., 100 AD3d 941, 943 [2012]).A stipulation of settlement is a contract, enforceable according to its terms. When a courtenforces a stipulation of settlement, it must effectuate the parties' intent. As with anycontract, where the terms of a stipulation of settlement are unambiguous, the SupremeCourt must give effect to the parties' intent based upon the plain meaning of the wordsused by the parties (see Long Is.Jr. Soccer League v Back of the Net, Ltd., 85 AD3d 737, 737-738 [2011]; Alshawhati v Zandani, 82AD3d 805, 807 [2011]).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, there was no dispute relating to the marital[*2]residence which was subject to arbitration. Theparties had agreed on the broker and, under the terms of the stipulation, it was thebroker's option at what price to list the house for sale. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtwas correct in finding that there was no arbitrable dispute relating to the listing for thesale of the former marital residence and in directing the defendant to sign a listingagreement.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Millerand Maltese, JJ., concur.