Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Imperato, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court ( see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside (see Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321). This is all the more so in the case of `open court' stipulations * * * where strict enforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process" ( Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, 893). Thus, absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, a stipulation will not be disturbed by the court ( see, Hallock v. State of New York, supra, at 230; Zwirn v. Zwirn, 153 A.D.2d 854; Bossom v. Bossom, 141 A.D.2d 794, 795).
In the present case, the record supports the court's finding that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation of settlement. There is no evidence in the record to support the defendant's contention that she was fraudulently induced or coerced into settling the case, or that the court compelled her to enter into the settlement. The record demonstrates that the court conducted a proper allocution of the defendant to determine whether she willingly accepted the terms of the stipulation. As a result, the defendant's motion to vacate the stipulation was properly denied.
We find no merit to the defendant's remaining contention. Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.