Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bruce E. Scheckowitz, J.), dated February 26, 2004 and October 25, 2004, and from denials of tenant's applications for orders to show cause dated June 10, 2004 and June 29, 2004. The orders dated February 26, 2004 and October 25, 2004 denied tenant's motions to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

Appeals from denials of tenant's applications for orders to show cause, dated June 10, 2004 and June 29, 2004, dismissed.

Orders dated February 26, 2004 and October 25, 2004 affirmed without costs.

In our view, no good cause existed to vacate the so-ordered stipulation of settlement. Tenant, who was represented by counsel, negotiated a binding stipulation whereby she agreed to an award of a final judgment of possession to landlord in exchange for a four-month stay of eviction, a payment of $5,000 to tenant upon timely surrender, and landlord's waiver of all claims for unpaid rent through February 29, 2004. Such stipulations of settlement "are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] [citations omitted]). "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.).

Here, other than expressing dissatisfaction with her attorney and the settlement, tenant offered no valid excuse for invalidating the so-ordered stipulation. Tenant was afforded ample opportunity to consider the proposed settlement and entered into it freely and voluntarily. After a [*2]two-hour conference before the court and having been repeatedly advised by the court that she did not have to settle, tenant, with the benefit of counsel, executed a favorable settlement in open court. The court, being in the best position to assess the voluntariness of tenant's agreement, was satisfied that tenant understood her options and that she entered into the agreement under no duress. We find that tenant's self-serving allegations, in hindsight, that her attorney had failed to disclose possible defenses and that she believed that she could not otherwise prevent her immediate eviction, are not proper grounds for vacating a binding stipulation. Nothing in the record suggests that the stipulation was coerced or the product of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. Thus, as a matter of law, no good cause existed to vacate the stipulation (see City of New York v 130/40 Essex St. Dev. Corp., 302 AD2d 292 [2003]). Accordingly, we affirm those orders which denied tenant's motions to vacate the stipulation.

The appeals from the "orders" dated June 10, 2004 and June 29, 2004 are dismissed because no appeal lies from a decision denying an application for an order to show cause (CCA 1702 [a] [2]; see Matter of Harrison v Scheinman, 61 NY2d 755 [1984]; Poplar Realty v Po, 3 Misc 3d 22 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 14, 2007