Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Eugene CHARLOP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, Kohler Co., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2008, which conditionally granted plaintiff's motion to vacate defendant Kohler's “no opposition summary judgment” motion on the ground that the summary judgment motion was inadvertently signed by plaintiff's counsel, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and the motion denied.
The power of a trial court to exercise supervisory control over all phases of an action or proceeding has long been recognized, including the discretionary authority to relieve a party from the consequences of a stipulation effected during litigation (Teitelbaum Holdings v. Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51, 54, 421 N.Y.S.2d 556, 396 N.E.2d 1029 [1979] ). In this case alleging asbestos-related mesothelioma, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to vacate.
Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and should not be lightly cast aside (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 [1984]; Matter of Kanter, 209 A.D.2d 365, 618 N.Y.S.2d 794 [1994] ). Thus, a party will not be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation unless there was sufficient cause to invalidate it, such as fraud, mistake, collusion, accident, or some other ground (see Hallock, 64 N.Y.2d at 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178; Daniel v. Long Is. Univ., 184 A.D.2d 350, 352, 585 N.Y.S.2d 349 [1992] ). The party seeking to vacate the stipulation should do so with reasonable promptness under the circumstances (see Hallock, 64 N.Y.2d at 231, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178) ( [parties bound by a stipulation where they voiced no objection for two months following the execution of a stipulation] ).
In Structured Asset Sales Group LLC v. Freeman, 45 A.D.3d 327, 844 N.Y.S.2d 699 [2007], the parties mutually decided to discontinue the action. The plaintiff received the proposed stipulation-which stated on its face that the discontinuance was “with prejudice”-and held onto it for two months before executing it (id. at 328, 844 N.Y.S.2d 699). The plaintiff then sought to set aside the stipulation, a request which was denied by Supreme Court. This Court upheld the dismissal of the action (id.).
The particular facts of the instant case, including the length of the time before the request to vacate the stipulation was made, require adherence to the holding of Structured Asset Sales Group LLC and mandate dismissal.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 21, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)