Defendants Ronald Scavuzzo and Geraldine Scavuzzo (hereinafter referred to as the "Scavuzzo defendants") move for an order, pursuant to CPLR 2104, enforcing a written settlement agreement between plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants Keyspan Energy Delivery (Keyspan) and John Nagasawa and Secundia Nagasawa (hereinafter referred to as the "Nagasawa defendants") cross move for identical relief ^[FN1].

This is an action to recover monetary damage for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff on February 12, 2002 as a result of a trip and fall at or around a raised area of sidewalk in front of the premises owned by the Scavuzzo defendents' located at 212 Elmwood Avenue in Brooklyn. All parties previously moved for summary judgment, and after oral argument, the court granted summary judgment to defendants the City of New York, Consolidated Edison and MEC Construction.

Thereafter, the attorneys for the remaining parties (defendants Keyspan, the Scavuzzo defendants and the Nagasawa defendants) agreed to participate in a mediation [*2]before Peter J. Merani, Esq. at the offices of Settlement Systems, Inc. On August 30, 2006 the respective attorneys for defendants and plaintiffs attended the mediation, along with plaintiff Ludovic Gold. According to the affirmation provided by David Stand Esq. (Mr. Stand), plaintiffs' attorney, the mediation lasted over four hours, where plaintiff was "consulted many times and at great length" by Neil Moldovan, Esq and his own attorney, Mr. Stand ^[FN2]. In addition, Mr. Stand avers that Gold "consulted frequently and extensively" with his wife. He states further:

A settlement agreement was prepared and executed by the attorneys for all the involved parties. Additionally, after carefully reading the settlement agreement, Gold signed and ratified the agreement in front of all participating defendants as well as mediator, Peter J. Merani. Additionally, the agreement was ratified by mediator Merani in the presence of Gold.

The moving defendants (and plaintiff's attorney) contend that, after hours of negotiations, the parties agreed to settle the action for a total of $75,000.00 ^[FN3].

The court finds that defendants are entitled to enforcement of the stipulation between the parties. It is well established that where the provisions of a stipulation of settlement are clear and unambiguous "the court should interpret the contract in accordance with its ordinary meaning" (O'Beirne v O'Beirne, 5 AD3d 572, 573 [2004]; see also W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]). " A separation agreement or stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face must be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability'" (Brennan-Duffy v Duffy, 22 AD3d 699, 699 [2005], quoting Linder v Linder, 297 AD2d 710, 711 [2002]). Here, the court finds no evidence of fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability which would necessitate that the court set aside the stipulation. As the parties clearly and unequivocally agreed to settle the action for the amount of $75,000, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that such stipulation should be set aside, the court grants defendants' respective motions for an order enforcing the stipulation.

E N T E R,

J. S. C.