Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered December 29, 2005. The order denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to modify and/or vacate the parties' stipulation of settlement.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover for breach of a credit card agreement, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion to modify and/or vacate the "so-ordered" stipulation of settlement. Stipulations of settlement of disputes are judicially favored and not lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). A party may be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation of settlement made during litigation upon a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, undue influence or duress (id.). Inasmuch as defendant "failed to establish that at the time of the stipulation of settlement [s]he was suffering from a[n] . . . illness or defect which rendered h[er] incapable of comprehending the nature of the transaction or making a rational judgment concerning the transaction, or that . . . [s]he was unable to control h[er] conduct," she is bound by the agreement into which she entered (Lukaszuk v Lukaszuk, 304 AD2d 625, 625 [2003]; see Federation of Orgs., Inc. v Bauer, 6 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). Accordingly, the court below properly denied the motion to modify and/or vacate the stipulation of settlement.

Golia, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: June 18, 2007