RACANELLI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC v. Centennial Insurance Company, defendant-respondent. (2008)

In an action to enforce a stipulation of settlement, the defendant Tadco Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered May 4, 2007, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate an oral stipulation of settlement and the resulting judgment entered September 28, 2006.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

 Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside, particularly when the parties are represented by attorneys (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178;  Matter of Stark, 233 A.D.2d 450, 650 N.Y.S.2d 608;  Heimuller v. Amoco Oil Co., 92 A.D.2d 882, 459 N.Y.S.2d 868).  “This is all the more so in the case of ‘open court’ stipulations (Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 334 N.Y.S.2d 833, 286 N.E.2d 228) within CPLR 2104, where strict enforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process” (Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d at 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178).  “ Only 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” (Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d at 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178;  see Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149-150, 324 N.Y.S.2d 36, 272 N.E.2d 543;  Matter of Davis, 292 A.D.2d 452, 738 N.Y.S.2d 884).

 In the case at bar, the defendant Tadco Construction Corp. (hereinafter Tadco) failed to show that there was cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident (see Matter of Marquez, 299 A.D.2d 551, 750 N.Y.S.2d 517).   Furthermore, contrary to Tadco's contention, the stipulation, which was stated in open court between respective counsel in the presence of all parties, is enforceable under the “open court exception” set forth in CPLR 2104 (see Storette v. Storette, 11 A.D.3d 365, 784 N.Y.S.2d 34;  Matter of Gruntz, 168 A.D.2d 558, 562 N.Y.S.2d 779;  DeVita v. Macy's E., Inc., 36 A.D.3d 751, 828 N.Y.S.2d 531;  Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d at 1, 334 N.Y.S.2d 833, 286 N.E.2d 228).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Tadco's motion which were to vacate the oral stipulation of settlement and the resulting judgment entered September 28, 2006.

Tadco's remaining contentions are without merit.