Rogers v. Malik

• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02106,126 A.D.3d 874,5 N.Y.S.3d 525
• Decision Date: 18 March 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-07150
• Parties: Susan ROGERS, appellant, v. Andrew Joseph MALIK, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 874

5 N.Y.S.3d 525

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02106

Susan ROGERS, appellant

v.Andrew Joseph MALIK, respondent.

2013-07150

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 18, 2015.

Susan Rogers, Elmhurst, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Blank Rome LLP, New York, N.Y. (Anthony A. Mingione of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for an intentional tort, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated April 12, 2013, as, upon renewal, adhered to a determination in an order dated June 11, 2012, denying her motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance and settlement dated August 20, 1996, and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order dated April 12, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement between parties are binding contracts enforceable by the court and, as such, they are favored and “not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v. New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 ; see Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321, 361 N.Y.S.2d 871, 320 N.E.2d 618 ), especially where, as here, the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel (see Matter of Mercer, 113 A.D.3d 772, 979 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; Esposito v. Podolsky, 104 A.D.3d 903, 905, 963 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; Kelley v. Chavez, 33 A.D.3d 590, 591, 821 N.Y.S.2d 466 ; Town of Clarkstown v. M.R.O. Pump & Tank, 287 A.D.2d 497, 498, 731 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). Only where there is a legally sufficient cause to invalidate a contractual obligation, such as where it is manifestly unfair to one party because of the other's overreaching or where its terms are unconscionable or constitute fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of the bargain struck with the stipulation (see Matter of Matinzi v. Joy, 60 N.Y.2d 835, 836, 470 N.Y.S.2d 131, 458 N.E.2d 372 ; Matter of Mercer, 113 A.D.3d 772, 979 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; Esposito v. Podolsky, 104 A.D.3d at 905, 963 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; Barzin v. Barzin, 158 A.D.2d 769, 770, 551 N.Y.S.2d 361 ). More than mere or conclusory allegations are required, however, since stipulations of settlement serve the interests of efficient dispute resolution, the proper management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process (see Hallock v. New York, 64 N.Y.2d at 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 ).

The Supreme Court did not err when, upon renewal, it adhered to its original determination denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance and settlement dated August 20, 1996 (hereinafter the stipulation), and to restore the action to the trial calendar. In support of the plaintiff's...