Katz v. Village of Southampton

• Decision Date: 17 November 1997
• Citation: Katz v. Village of Southampton, 664 N.Y.S.2d 457, 244 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9630 Frances R. KATZ, et al., Respondents-Appellants, Deanna Adler, et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., Appellants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 457

664 N.Y.S.2d 457

244 A.D.2d 461, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9630

Frances R. KATZ, et al., Respondents-Appellants Deanna Adler, et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 17, 1997.

Devitt & Spellman, Barrett, Callahan, Leyden & Kenny, LLP, Smithtown (Thomas J. Spellman, Jr., and L. Kevin Sheridan, of counsel), for appellants-respondents Village of Southampton, William Hattrick, Jacob Buchheit, Albert Frankenbach, Doulgas Morris, and Richard Spooner.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, New York City (Vincent R. Fontana and Richard E. Lerner, of counsel), for appellant-respondent Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton.

Bracken & Margolin, Islandia (Linda U. Margolin, on the brief), for respondents-appellants.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and COPERTINO, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the defendants' actions pursuant to Village of Southampton Code § 80-1(D)(1) and (4) unconstitutional, (1) the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), entered August 29, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate a stipulation to dismiss the complaint with prejudice insofar as asserted against the defendant Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, (2) the defendants Village of Southampton, William Hattrick, Jacob Buchheit, Albert Frankenbach, Douglas Morris, and Richard Spooner separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered November 28, 1995, as denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to join a necessary party and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (3) the plaintiffs Frances R. Katz, Leonard M. Rosen, Renee Greenfield, and Van D. Greenfield cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order entered November 28, 1995, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order entered August 29, 1996, is reversed, on the law, the motion to vacate the stipulation is denied, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice insofar as asserted against the defendant Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered November 28, 1995, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants Village of Southampton, William Hattrick, Jacob Buchheit, Albert Frankenbach, Douglas Morris, and Richard Spooner; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered November 28, 1995, is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment declaring that Village of Southampton Code § 80-1(D)(1) and (4) was properly adopted and is constitutional, and that the defendants' actions pursuant to Village of Southampton Code § 80-1(D)(1) and (4) were constitutional and proper; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not be set aside unless there is a cause sufficient to invalidate a contract such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident (see, Perrino v. Bimasco, 234 A.D.2d 281, 651 N.Y.S.2d 53; Varveris v. Fisher, 229 A.D.2d 573, 645 N.Y.S.2d 853; Wolstencroft v. Sassower, 212 A.D.2d 598, 623 N.Y.S.2d 7). Since those grounds do not exist here, there is no basis for relieving the plaintiffs from the stipulation pursuant to which the complaint against the defendant Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Freehold Trusteeship) was dismissed with prejudice.

This action seeks, inter alia, a declaration of rights as to an easement which the Freehold Trusteeship holds for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the Town of Southampton. The Freehold...