Robison v. Borelli

• Decision Date: 01 May 1997
• Citation: Robison v. Borelli, 657 N.Y.S.2d 783, 239 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
• Parties: Gene H. ROBISON et al., Respondents, v. Mario L. BORELLI, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 783

657 N.Y.S.2d 783

239 A.D.2d 656

Gene H. ROBISON et al., Respondents, v. Mario L. BORELLI, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

May 1, 1997.

Levine, Hofstetter & Frangk (Ronald R. Levine, of counsel), Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

Silver, Forrester, Schisano & Lesser P.C. (Martin B. Schaffer, Middletown, of counsel), New Windsor, for respondents.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.

SPAIN, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered February 21, 1996 in Ulster County, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

This action was commenced as the result of a boundary line dispute between plaintiffs and defendant, owners of adjoining property. On February 15, 1995, the date the case was scheduled for trial, defendant's surveyor refused to give testimony and the parties agreed to resolve the dispute by a stipulation of settlement. On this date, a handwritten stipulation was executed by the parties setting forth the agreed-upon boundary line. After the execution of the stipulation, defendant maintained that it did not accurately describe the rear boundary line as agreed to by the parties and additional appearances to resolve the issue were had before Supreme Court. Supreme Court directed the parties to have the property surveyed in accordance with the boundary line set forth in the written stipulation. After the survey was completed, defendant moved, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of settlement and to restore the case to the trial calendar. Plaintiffs, in turn, cross-moved to enforce the stipulation. Supreme Court, inter alia, denied defendant's motion and ordered that the boundary line be enforced according to the terms of the stipulation. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. "Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside" (Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178). "[S]trict enforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process" (id.). Consequently, "[o]nly 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.; see, Hillcrest Realty Co. v Gottlieb, 234 A.D.2d 270, 271, 651 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56; Citibank v. Rathjen, 202 A.D.2d 235, 608 N.Y.S.2d 453, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 850, 617 N.Y.S.2d 139, 641 N.E.2d 160; Matter of Janet L. [Gillray L.], 200 A.D.2d 801, 803, 606 N.Y.S.2d 431, lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 83 N.Y.2d 941, 615 N.Y.S.2d...