Satisfaction pieceAugust 18, 2011
So, who was the braniac that appealed this one? I am almost tempted to check e-courts, but I will resist the temptation.
Baldwin Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51536(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“Plaintiff appeals, contending that the stipulation of settlement should have been vacated and, in any event, that there was no basis for the Civil Court to have vacated the default judgment, as this relief was never requested by defendant.
Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 ; Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 ; Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d 875 ). Pursuant to CPLR 2104, when a stipulation is reduced to a writing and signed by a party or its attorney, it is binding upon that party. Furthermore, strict enforcement of a stipulation of settlement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d at 230; Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d at 876). 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 a stipulation made during litigation (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d at 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150 ; Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d at 876; Nigro v Nigro, 44 AD3d 831 ; Davidson v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 819 ).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, plaintiff did not establish that the stipulation of settlement had been entered into through mutual mistake, nor has there been a sufficient showing that there existed a unilateral mistake on the part of plaintiff of a nature that would warrant the vacatur of the stipulation (see Matter of Marquez, 299 AD2d 551 ). Moreover, we do not find that there has been a sufficient showing to demonstrate that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter into the stipulation of settlement (see Matter of Kaplan, 141 AD2d 545 ). We, however, agree with plaintiff that neither the stipulation nor defendant’s motion called for the vacatur of the default judgment. Accordingly, the order is modified by striking the provision thereof vacating the default judgment and by providing that defendant’s motion for an order directing entry of a satisfaction of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5021 is granted.”