| Cora Realty Co. LLC v Turner |
| 2004 NY Slip Op 51478(U) |
| Decided on December 3, 2004 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated September 11, 2003 (Donna G. Recant, J.) which granted defendant's motion, denominated as one to "vacate [a] default judgment," to the extent of directing a hearing to determine the "propriety" of the parties' written settlement stipulation.
PER CURIAM:
Order dated September 11, 2003 (Donna G. Recant, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant's motion denied.
Following entry of a default judgment against defendant for her failure to answer the complaint, the parties entered into a written settlement stipulation dated June 23, 2003, under which defendant agreed to pay a specified amount in installments in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's rent claim and "[i]n consideration" of the plaintiff's "lifting of the restraining notice" previously served. After tendering the initial installment payment due under the stipulation's provisions, defendant moved on August 20, 2003 to vacate the "default judgment". The defendant's application, made nearly two months after she signed the settlement agreement, was [*2]supported by a short-form affidavit that did not address the circumstances of the negotiation or execution of the stipulation or even reference its existence. The court, without elaboration, granted defendant's motion "only to the extent of setting this matter down for a hearing to determine the proprietary of the stipulation between the parties".
To the extent that defendant now seeks to revisit the propriety of the default judgment, such inquiry is precluded by the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, which was an independent contract between the parties (see Broadway Famous Party Rental v Cipriani 42nd St., L.L.C., 289 AD2d 45 [2001]). Nor has defendant offered any basis — other than an apparent change of heart — to excuse her from complying with the clear and unambiguous terms of the settlement stipulation. "Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]), and only "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" (id.).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: December 03, 2004