DOOLITTLE v. QUIGGLE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

James DOOLITTLE and Carol Doolittle, Appellants, v. James H. QUIGGLE and Susan Quiggle, Respondents.

Decided: April 25, 1997

Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, CALLAHAN, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ. Karpinski, Stapleton by Mark H. Fandrich, Auburn, for Appellants. Pinnisi, Wagner, Sherwyn & Geldenhuys by Mariette Geldenhuys, Ithaca, for Respondents.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' application to resettle the order that incorporated the terms of an in-court stipulation of settlement.   Although plaintiffs now claim that their attorney “misspoke” and that the terms of the stipulation relating to the width of the right-of-way were entered into under a mistake of fact, the record reflects that plaintiffs neither expressed any reservations nor raised any questions regarding its content or effect during their colloquy with the court, despite having been provided with the opportunity to do so (see, Rosato v. Macier, 222 A.D.2d 865, 866, 635 N.Y.S.2d 726;  Matter of Goldman v. Goldman, 201 A.D.2d 860, 861, 608 N.Y.S.2d 533).   The stipulation of settlement was complete when it was entered on the record and assented to by the parties and should therefore be enforced (see, Lynch v. Lynch, 105 A.D.2d 1069, 1070, 482 N.Y.S.2d 177;  Owens v. Lombardi, 41 A.D.2d 438, 439-440, 343 N.Y.S.2d 978, lv. denied 33 N.Y.2d 515, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 302 N.E.2d 554).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: