Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered September 28, 2012. The order granted defendant's motion to vacate a judgment and directed restitution of any monies that plaintiff had collected in the enforcement of the judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion to vacate the judgment is denied.

In this action to recover for breach of a credit card agreement and upon an account stated, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, "so ordered" by the judge. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, defendant was required to make monthly installment payments. In the event of a default, plaintiff was entitled to enter judgment in the full amount sued for. After making one payment, defendant defaulted. In accordance with the terms of the stipulation of settlement, plaintiff entered judgment and garnished defendant's income. Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment as well as all executions on the judgment, and directed restitution of any monies that plaintiff had collected in the enforcement of the judgment, without engaging in any fact finding or setting forth any rationale for its decision.

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not easily be set aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). While stipulations of settlements may be vacated on grounds sufficient to set aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake, collusion or accident (see Nash v Yablon-Nash, 61 AD3d 832 [2009]), a party should not be relieved from the consequences of the stipulation, particularly one made in "open court," absent a sufficient or compelling showing of the above (see Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC v Williams, 38 Misc 3d 138[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50184[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013] [finding that the trial court had properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement on the ground that the amount claimed due in the action was incorrect]; Geraci v Jankowitz, 36 Misc 3d 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51354[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012] [finding that the tenant had failed to set forth any basis to invalidate the stipulation]; Citibank [SD] N.A. v Bissoon, 16 Misc 3d 127[A], [*2]2007 NY Slip Op 51265[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] [finding that the motion to modify or vacate the stipulation was properly denied where the defendant had failed to establish that at the time of the stipulation of settlement she was suffering from mental illness or defect which made her incapable of comprehending the nature of the transaction or making a rational judgment concerning the transaction, or that she was unable to control her conduct]). Here, no such grounds existed or were even alleged. Instead, in support of the motion to vacate, the judge was presented with a statement from defendant which acknowledged that a stipulation of settlement existed, that she had made only one payment under the stipulation and that any remaining payments were secured through garnishment. In her moving papers, defendant failed to offer any basis for why she did not comply with the stipulation or a ground for vacating the judgment. Nevertheless, the court inexplicably granted defendant's motion, directed plaintiff to return all monies collected, and placed the matter on the trial calendar, in effect vacating the stipulation of settlement, without ever addressing the stipulation of settlement in its decision. We find, under the circumstances presented, that the court grossly abused its discretion in granting the foregoing relief.

We further note that the ability to manage a court calendar is severely hampered and there will be no expectation of enforcement by a party if stipulations of settlements or judgments are so lightly cast aside. Moreover, such decisions, which require litigants to go through the process of continually appealing decisions setting aside stipulations without adequate grounds, create a situation where such litigants feel they are being wholesale denied access to the courts. This continuous expense to re-litigate issues which were resolved has a chilling effect upon the integrity of the litigation process.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion to vacate the judgment is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 17, 2013