Defendant moves for an order to vacate the judgment entered against her. As is set forth below, defendant's motion is granted in its entirety. [*2]

This action was commenced in June 2009. Thereafter, the defendant interposed an answer. The court scheduled this matter for a conference on August 28, 2009. On August 28, 2009, the parties in court entered into a "so ordered" stipulation of settlement in which defendant agreed to pay the claim by a reduced amount of $3,250.00, in which payments in the amount of $1,625.00 was due on or before September 25, 2009 and October 26, 2009.

It is undisputed that by October 26, 2009, the defendant made voluntary payments totaling $3,025.00. On November 9, 2009, plaintiff's attorney mailed a 10 (ten) day default notice to defendant in pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement. The defendant failed to cure by paying the $225.00 balance.

On February 5, 2010, plaintiff obtained a breach of stipulation judgment against the defendant. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement, the judgment reflected the amount claimed herein giving credit to defendant for all voluntary payments made. On February 5, 2010, plaintiff entered a judgment for $4,896.97.

On June 11, 2010, the defendant made a voluntary payment in the amount of $225.00. Defendant then filed this instant order to show cause to vacate the judgment, liens and income execution. At oral argument, defendant argued that she accidently believed that she was in compliance with the stipulation when she paid the plaintiff $3,025.00. Defendant alleges that when she came to the realization of her mistake she immediately paid the plaintiff the balance of $225, and that at any rate, the defendant argues that she has fully complied with the terms of stipulation and has a zero balance.

It is well settled that, "stipulations of settlement are favored and in general will be enforced in accordance with their terms" (Everett D. Jennings Apts., L.P. v. Jones, 4 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50773[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] ), pursuant to the well-settled rule that a stipulation's enforcement is "subject to the supervision of the courts" (J & H Mgt. Corp. v. W.W.R.S Automotive Inc., 7 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50742[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] [citing Malvin v. Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769, affd 48 NY2d 693 [1978] ).

Furthermore, courts may relieve a party from the consequences of enforcement of a stipulation where such "would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage" ( Bank of NY v. Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]; see also Weitz v. Murphy, 241 AD2d 547, 548 [1997]; Hyman Embroidery Works v. Action House, 89 AD2d 515 [1982]; 40 Plus 53 61st Street Realty Corp. v. Dalton, 2003 NY Slip Op 51159[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] ).

This relief is appropriate upon a finding of "substantial compliance" with a [*3]stipulation (e.g. Rockaway One Co. v. Williams, 3 Misc 3d 25, 27 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; see also Lemish v. East-West Renovating Co., 156 AD2d 313 [1st Dept 1989]; AMA Realty LLC v. Farfan, 4 Misc 3d 131[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50702[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; S & P Assocs. v. Keenan, 2002 NY Slip Op 50324[U] [App Term, 1st Dept] ).

Indeed, in Forlini, the court noted that the courts are empowered to apply the relief "[u]nder almost any given state of facts," that is, whenever the stipulation's enforcement would be "unjust or inequitable" or afford the enforcing party an "unconscionable advantage" (Bank of NY v. Forlini, 220 AD2d at 378).

Here, the record supports the court's determination that the defendant had substantially complied with the stipulation's terms by paying $3,025.00 to the plaintiff by October 26, 2009 The defendant inadvertently forgot to pay the $225 by October 26, 2009. At the time when the defendant made the payment of $3,025.00 she honestly believed that she satisfied the stipulation. The court is of the opinion that the defendant should not be penalized for making an honest mistake, especially given the fact that upon realizing her error the defendant immediately paid the $225 balance. Thus, the court determines that in a reasonable view of the facts herein the defendant was in "substantial compliance" with the stipulation's terms. In light of this holding, the court relieves the defendant from from the consequences of enforcement where such as in the case at bar "would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage." (Bank of NY v. Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995] ).

Accordingly, the court vacates all judgments, liens and income executions against the defendant stemming from the breach of stipulation judgment herein. The court deems that defendant has a zero balance, and that all judgments are deemed satisfied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: July 15, 2010

Staten Island, New York

__________________Orlando Marrazzo, Jr.,

Civil Court Judge

ASN by__________in Court