Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered June 23, 2005. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a judgment entered upon defendant's default in complying with the terms of a stipulation of settlement.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action for breach of a loan agreement, the court below properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment and underlying stipulation of settlement entered into in the course of trial. Stipulations of settlement, including those, such as the stipulation at issue here, made on the record in open court (see CPLR 2104), are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside; to support vacatur, grounds sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, undue influence or duress must be shown (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 302 [2002]; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see DeJose v DeJose, 104 AD2d 629 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 804 [1985]). Although defendant alleges that she entered into the stipulation out of fear of physical or emotional abuse by plaintiffs, she did not object to it in court and made payments in accordance with it for approximately two years, also without objection. Moreover, defendant has not demonstrated that any such fear or other form of duress or undue influence governed her actions during this two-year period. Thus, defendant has failed to demonstrate grounds to vacate the stipulation of settlement (see Korngold v Korngold, 26 AD3d 358 [2006]; DeSantis v Ariens Co., 17 AD3d 311 [2005]).

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 3, 2006