| Capitol Discount Corp. v McFarlane |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50140(U) [50 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on February 5, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered June 11, 2014. The order, among other things, in effect, conditionally granted defendant's motion to vacate a judgment entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover the principal sum of $5,520.49 allegedly due pursuant to a retail installment contract, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby defendant agreed to make monthly payments of $75 until the sum of $3,500 was paid in full. The stipulation further provided that, in the event of a default in payment, plaintiff could enter judgment in the amount sued upon. After having paid $3,375 pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, defendant allegedly defaulted in making further payments and a judgment was entered in the principal sum of $5,520.49. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment. The Civil Court granted the motion and ancillary relief, and directed defendant to pay the remaining balance of $125.
Although stipulations of settlement are favored and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other grounds sufficient to invalidate a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]), enforcement of a stipulation remains subject to the supervision of the court (see Malvin v Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769 [1978], affd 48 NY2d 693 [1979]). Relieving a party from enforcement of a stipulation of settlement is appropriate upon a finding of substantial compliance with the stipulation of settlement (see Rockaway One Co. v Williams, 3 Misc 3d 25, 27 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Here, the record demonstrates that defendant had substantially complied with the stipulation of settlement. We conclude, under the circumstances presented, that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in conditionally granting defendant's motion to vacate the judgment.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.