Use the Israel form databank when in doubt

The Critical Importance of Precise Stipulation Language in No-Fault Cases

When drafting stipulations in New York no-fault insurance litigation, every word matters. A recent Appellate Term decision highlights a fundamental principle that practitioners should never overlook: if you want to enter a clerk’s judgment for a specific amount, your stipulation must contain the exact protective language that makes this possible. Without it, you may find yourself making unnecessary motions to the court.

This case serves as a reminder that even experienced attorneys can stumble on seemingly basic procedural requirements. The difference between a properly drafted stipulation and one missing key language can mean the difference between a swift resolution and additional litigation costs.

Stipulations represent binding agreements between parties that courts will enforce according to their terms. When parties reach settlement agreements contingent on future performance, proper stipulation drafting becomes essential to preserve enforcement remedies. The challenge lies in anticipating what happens when promised performance fails to materialize and ensuring the stipulation provides clear pathways to resolution.

New York courts have developed standard language for settlement stipulations that has withstood decades of judicial scrutiny. This boilerplate language, often referred to as the “Israel form” provisions after prominent practitioner Herbert Israel who popularized certain formulations, includes specific clauses addressing default scenarios. When attorneys omit this protective language, they may discover that enforcement requires additional court intervention rather than simple clerk’s judgments.

Case Background

Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. and Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company entered into a stipulation resolving the provider’s lawsuit for unpaid no-fault benefits. The stipulation required Empire to pay a specified amount within a defined timeframe. However, the stipulation apparently lacked the standard protective clause stating that if payment is not made within the agreed period, judgment may be entered for the amount specified in the complaint without further notice.

When Empire failed to make timely payment, Doctor Goldshteyn sought to enter a clerk’s judgment for the full amount claimed in the complaint, which exceeded what the stipulation specified. Empire objected, arguing that the stipulation only authorized entry of judgment for the stipulated amount, not the larger complaint figure. The parties’ dispute required judicial resolution about whether the provider could obtain judgment exceeding the stipulation terms without filing a formal motion.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v Empire Fire & Mar. Ins. Co.. 2021 NY Slip Op 50722(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2021)

This case is remarkable for one thing and one thing only. Why wouldn’t you put the famous line in the stupulation: if payment is not made in ___ days. judgment will be entered in the sum set forth in the complaint without further notice to either party?

The reality according to the Appellate Division is if you seek to enter a clerk’s judgment for more than what is agreed to in the stipulation, then you need to make a motion to enter judgment. I am not researching the case, but I remember it from a few years ago.

Legal Significance: Stipulation Language Controls Enforcement Rights

The Doctor Goldshteyn case reinforces that stipulations are interpreted according to their express terms, and courts will not imply provisions that parties failed to include. When settlement agreements lack specific enforcement language, parties must resort to formal motion practice to obtain relief beyond what the stipulation explicitly authorizes.

This principle reflects fundamental contract law. Stipulations constitute contracts between litigants, and courts enforce them according to their plain language. Ambiguous or incomplete stipulations are construed against the drafter, particularly when one party seeks remedies not clearly contemplated by the agreement’s terms.

The decision highlights the distinction between two types of settlement judgments. Stipulations authorizing clerk’s judgments upon default provide streamlined enforcement without further court involvement. However, stipulations lacking such provisions require moving parties to petition courts for judgment, demonstrating the default and establishing entitlement to relief. This additional step consumes time and resources while creating opportunities for defaulting parties to raise defenses.

Jason Tenenbaum identifies the key protective language that would have avoided this problem. The standard formulation “if payment is not made in ___ days, judgment will be entered in the sum set forth in the complaint without further notice to either party” accomplishes several objectives. It creates conditional authorization for clerk’s judgment entry, specifies the judgment amount clearly, and eliminates surprise by providing advance notice of consequences. Including this language transforms stipulations from simple payment agreements into self-executing enforcement mechanisms.

Practical Implications for Settlement Practice

Medical providers’ attorneys drafting no-fault settlement stipulations should always include protective language authorizing clerk’s judgment entry upon default. This clause should specify: (1) the exact deadline for payment, (2) the judgment amount if default occurs, (3) that judgment may be entered without further notice, and (4) whether interest and costs are included. Using form language tested through years of litigation reduces the risk of ambiguity.

Insurance defense counsel should recognize that accepting stipulations with strong enforcement provisions may create pressure for timely payment. However, attempting to negotiate weaker enforcement language may prolong settlement discussions and signal unwillingness to comply with agreements. In most cases, agreeing to standard enforcement provisions benefits both parties by creating certainty.

Trial courts should scrutinize whether stipulations contain clear authorization for requested relief before permitting clerk’s judgments to be entered. When stipulations are ambiguous or silent about enforcement procedures, courts should require formal motions rather than allowing unilateral judgment entry.

Key Takeaway

Always include the standard protective language in your stipulations: “if payment is not made in ___ days, judgment will be entered in the sum set forth in the complaint without further notice to either party.” Without this clause, attempting to enter a clerk’s judgment for more than the stipulated amount requires filing a motion with the court, adding unnecessary time and expense to your case resolution.

This principle applies broadly to no-fault practice procedures, similar to other technical requirements we’ve discussed regarding CPLR provisions that can make or break a case.

Related Articles

• No-Fault attorney
• Mark it up, fax it back and see what happens
• Interest when liability is stipulated