Freight Brokers Global Services, Inc., appellant, v. Robert L. Molfetta, et al., respondents. (2011)

Argued—November 29, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with business relations, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered November 9, 2009, as denied those branches of its motion which were to vacate a so-ordered stipulation of settlement of the same court dated April 23, 2008, on the ground of fraud, for an award of an attorney's fee, and for the imposition of sanctions upon the defendants pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130–1.1.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly set aside, especially where, as here, the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel” (Kelley v. Chavez, 33 AD3d 590, 591 [citation omitted];  see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230;  Macaluso v. Macaluso, 62 AD3d 963;  Trakansook v. Kerry, 45 AD3d 673;  Town of Clarkstown v. M.R.O. Pump & Tank, 287 A.D.2d 497, 498).   A party seeking to set aside such a stipulation will be granted such relief only upon a showing of good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake (see McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 302;  Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d at 230;  Macaluso v. Macaluso, 62 AD3d at 963;  Trakansook v. Kerry, 45 AD3d 673;  Kelley v. Chavez, 33 AD3d at 591;  Town of Clarkstown v. M.R.O. Pump & Tank, 287 A.D.2d at 498).   Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that its submissions failed to demonstrate good cause to set aside the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for an award of an attorney's fee and for the imposition of sanctions upon the defendants.   The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was frivolous within the meaning of Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130–1.1(c).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, ENG and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court