Opinion
2001-10410
Argued October 31, 2002.
November 25, 2002.
In a proceeding to vacate a stipulation of settlement, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated September 18, 2001, as granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition.
Reginald T. Brewster, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Ricardo Morel, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding to vacate a stipulation of settlement made by the parties in open court. The respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition, contending that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate a ground to invalidate the stipulation. The Surrogate's Court granted the motion, and we affirm.
The respondent established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Stipulations of settlement, especially those made in open court, are favored by the courts and will not be lightly cast aside (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; Matter of Davis, 292 A.D.2d 452, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 692; Braham v. Kingsboro Med. Group, 275 A.D.2d 385. Thus, "[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation" (Hallock v. State of New York, supra at 230; Mtr of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143). Here, the open court stipulation entered into by the parties was clear and unambiguous (see Matter of Gruntz, 168 A.D.2d 558; Matter of Hecht's Will, 24 A.D.2d 1001). Moreover, the Surrogate's Court conducted a proper allocution of the petitioner and determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation (see Matter of DePaul, 249 A.D.2d 390). The petitioner did not come forward with evidence that the stipulation was the result of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident sufficient to invalidate a contract. Under these circumstances, the petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and the Surrogate's Court properly concluded that there was no basis for setting aside the stipulation (see Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Kaplan, 141 A.D.2d 545).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.