Siltan v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 02 December 2002 |
| Citation | 750 N.Y.S.2d 323,300 A.D.2d 298 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | LETEBERHAN SILTAN, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and<BR>ALVARO BARANDICA et al., Appellants. |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the appellants' answer is reinstated.
The so-ordered stipulation in the instant case, signed by counsel for the respective parties during a court appearance, is binding (see CPLR 2104). In the stipulation, the plaintiff agreed that, in the event that the appellants failed to comply with the so-ordered stipulation, her remedy would be limited to the preclusion of their testimony at trial. While a court certainly has discretion to refuse to enforce a stipulation where there is evidence of fraud, overreaching, unconscionability, or illegality (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230), there is no such evidence in this case. The so-ordered stipulation functioned as a conditional order of preclusion, which became absolute upon the appellants' failure to comply (see Jenkinson v Naccarato, 286 AD2d 420; Liotti v Ruk, 282 AD2d 717; Kepple v Hill Assoc., 275 AD2d 299, 300; Stewart v City of New York, 266 AD2d 452; Tirone v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 264 AD2d 415; Michaud v City of New York, 242 AD2d 369, 370; Clissuras v Concord Vil. Owners, 233 AD2d 475). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in imposing a sanction other than the agreed-upon sanction when the appellants did not comply with the so-ordered stipulation (see Tirone v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., supra; Ferrantello v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 249 AD2d 263; Smith v City of New York, 239 AD2d 337, 338).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okumus v. Living Room Steak House, Inc.
...mistake, or accident ( see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178; Siltan v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 298, 750 N.Y.S.2d 323), here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause sufficient to invalidate the stipulation ( see Kirkland v. Fayn......
-
Carillon Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLP v. Fox
...Living Room Steak House, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 799, 977 N.Y.S.2d 340;Kirkland v. Fayne, 78 A.D.3d 660, 915 N.Y.S.2d 270;Siltan v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 298, 750 N.Y.S.2d 323). The defendants' bare allegations of neglect by their prior counsel were insufficient to excuse the failure over a......
-
Kirkland v. Fayne
...mistake, or accident ( see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178; Siltan v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 298, 750 N.Y.S.2d 323), here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause sufficient to invalidate the subject provision of the stipulati......
-
Luo v. Yang
...560, 779 N.Y.S.2d 527 ; Goldsmith Motors Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 300 A.D.2d 440, 440–441, 751 N.Y.S.2d 547 ; Siltan v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 298, 750 N.Y.S.2d 323 ), unless the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with its terms and the existence of a pote......