Opinion
2007-974 Q C.
Decided July 8, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 25, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion to deem a judgment against it satisfied pursuant to CPLR 5021.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties entered into two stipulations, dated March 1, 2006, in which plaintiff agreed to accept the sum total of $1,348.64, plus a delineated amount for attorney's fees and costs, to settle the action, on the condition that the payments be made within 30 days. The agreements further provided that if defendant failed to make the payments within 30 days, plaintiff could enter judgment for the full amount demanded in the complaint. Defendant failed to make the payments by March 31, 2006, and plaintiff entered judgment in the sum of $3,025.27, which included the principal sum of $1,791.73, plus statutory interest, attorney's fees and other costs.
On May 3, 2006, defendant paid plaintiff the amounts set forth in the stipulations and subsequently moved, inter alia, for an order deeming the judgment satisfied, arguing that the clause of the stipulations allowing plaintiff to enter judgment for the full amount demanded in the complaint was an unenforceable penalty clause. The court below denied defendant's motion, and defendant appeals.
CPLR 5021 (a) (2) does not authorize the courts to deem a money judgment satisfied upon anything other than full payment of the judgment. "[A] court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice" ( Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68).
Defendant did not demonstrate sufficient reason for vacatur of the judgment. We find that the stipulations do not contain an unenforceable penalty clause ( see ABCO Refrig. Supply Corp. v Designs by Keiser Corp., 239 AD2d 165). Contrary to defendant's assertions, this is not a situation in which plaintiff sought damages upon defendant's breach of a stipulation that created a new agreement between the parties ( e.g. Quaker Oats Co. v Reilly, 274 AD2d 565). Rather, the stipulations are "a variant of a judgment on consent" ( Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 1113[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51405[U] [Nassau Dist Ct 2007]). Defendant consented to entry of judgment for the full amount sought in the complaint, while plaintiff agreed to accept a reduced sum provided that defendant tendered such payment within an agreed upon time period ( see id.). Accordingly, judgment was entered in the proper amount pursuant to the stipulations and defendant was not entitled to relief from the judgment.
Golia, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.