St. James Towers v Coleman

[*1] St. James Towers v Coleman 2004 NY Slip Op 50384(U) Decided on May 4, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 4, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
NO. 2003-719 K C

ST. JAMES TOWERS, INC., Respondent,

against

ORA COLEMAN, Appellant.

Appeal by tenant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (A. Alterman, J.), dated May 12, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate the final judgment entered upon her default under a stipulation.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In July 2002, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement which resolved this nonpayment proceeding. Upon tenant's breach of the stipulation, the proceeding was restored to the trial calendar. After a final judgment was entered against tenant, she moved by order to show cause to vacate it. On April 10, 2003, the parties then entered into another so-ordered stipulation. Although the stipulation provided that time was of the essence, tenant failed to pay the stipulated sum by the agreed upon date and a final judgment was entered by reason thereof. The court subsequently denied her motion which sought to prevent execution of the warrant of eviction by vacating the final judgment and this appeal ensued.

"Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside * * *. This is all the more so in the case of 'open court' stipulations * * * 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. 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 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Town of [*2]Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, 287 AD2d 497, 498 [2001]). Inasmuch as tenant did not demonstrate the existence of cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, the court properly denied her motion in which she sought to vacate the final judgment entered upon her default under the stipulation.

Tenant's remaining contentions are dehors the record (see People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407 [1998]; Devellis v Lucci, 266 AD2d 180 [1999]; Matter of Anonymous (Michelman), 182 AD2d 617 [1992]; Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]) and, in any event, without merit.
Decision Date: May 04, 2004