Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"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, the 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). Additionally, where the agreement is fair on its face, such that there is no inference of overreaching, vacatur is not warranted even if one party failed to disclose financial information, unless the undisclosed information was of such consequence that had it been disclosed, the other party would not have executed the agreement (see, Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834).
In the present case, the record supports the trial court's finding that the defendant wife was represented by counsel when she voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation of settlement, notwithstanding her suspicions that her husband had converted certain marital property to personal property. There is no evidence in the record to support the wife's contention that she was fraudulently induced or coerced into settling the case, or that the court compelled her to enter into the settlement. Efforts by the court to assist in the settlement of a matter do not rise to the level of coercion when a trial is the only alternative to settlement. Furthermore, the record supports the trial court's findings that the provisions of the stipulation agreement were fair and reasonable. The wife's motion to vacate the stipulation was therefore properly denied.
We find no merit to the wife's remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.