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.
Delis Vasquez CARRANZA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR CANCER AND ALLIED DISEASES, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2026, which granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the judgment entered against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
It is undisputed that defendants paid the settlement amount on September 18, 2025, which payment was received by plaintiff's counsel on September 19, 2025. Since plaintiff did not tender the relevant settlement documents, including a signed settlement agreement and release and revised stipulation of discontinuance, until September 9, 2025, the settlement payment was timely (see CPLR 5003–a).
That plaintiff provided signed documents on July 21, 2025 (which were received by defendants on July 23, 2025) is immaterial because these were not the agreed-upon settlement documents. Plaintiff's counsel stated in open court on July 2, 2025 that defendants had 30 days – until August 1, 2025 – to provide a draft “release of stipulation.” Defendants provided such a draft on August 1, 2025 – within the agreed-upon deadline – but plaintiff did not respond until August 26, 2025, and the settlement agreement and release and revised stipulation of discontinuance were not ultimately signed until September 9, 2025.
Plaintiff's counsel also admitted in open court on July 2, 2025 that a “complete waiver of the Workers' Compensation lien” was to be part of the settlement (and the ultimate settlement agreement and release required such waiver). It was not until September 5, 2025, however, that plaintiff provided a signed, workers' compensation lien waiver. Thus, defendants' obligation to tender payment did not begin until such time that all agreed upon settlement documents were provided (see Cely v. O'Brien & Kreitzberg, 45 A.D.3d 368, 368, 845 N.Y.S.2d 292 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
In view of our disposition of this issue, we need not reach the parties' arguments with respect to accord and satisfaction.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 7086
Decided: September 29, 2026
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)