From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

G S CLAM BAR, INC. v. MELILLO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-01039

Argued January 21, 2003.

February 18, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to set aside the sale of a business and real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated January 11, 2002, which denied their motion to set aside a stipulation of discontinuance and granted the cross motion of the defendant Helen A. Silva to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Bart and Schwartz, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Dawn A. Lott of counsel), for appellants.

Mark G. Deifik, Westbury, N.Y., for respondent Helen A. Silva.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Stipulations are favored by the courts and will be set aside only upon a showing of good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Zwirn v. Zwirn, 153 A.D.2d 854). The plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to set aside the stipulation of discontinuance and properly granted the cross motion of the defendant Helen A. Silva to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

G S CLAM BAR, INC. v. MELILLO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 2003
302 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

G S CLAM BAR, INC. v. MELILLO

Case Details

Full title:G S CLAM BAR, INC., ET AL., appellants, v. GEORGE A. MELILLO, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 18, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Utica Mutual Insurance v. Swim Tech Pool Services Inc.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate a provision…

M.H. Kane Construction Corp. v. URS Corp. Group Consultants

Accordingly, the first and second causes of action were properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The…