Chase Manhattan Bank v Laws

Chase Manhattan Bank v Laws 2003 NY Slip Op 51447(U) Decided on November 18, 2003 Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Appellate Term, First Department

[*1] This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the Official Reports.
Digest-Index Classification:Stipulations—Enforcement
Decided on November 18, 2003
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
570403/03

THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

FRANKLIN C. LAWS,

[*2] Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County, entered January 13, 2003 (Irving Rosen, J.) denying his motion to vacate an income execution and to restore this action to the calendar.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered January 13, 2003 (Irving Rosen, J.) affirmed, without costs.

In this action by plaintiff bank to recover outstanding loan payments, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement agreeing to a balance of $6,500 to be paid by defendant at the rate of $150 per month until the balance was paid in full. Upon defendant's payment default and plaintiff's service of a notice of default, plaintiff was authorized under the stipulation to enter judgment in its favor for the amount due as originally demanded in the summons and complaint ($8,730.33), less any sums paid on account, together with interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the judgment as entered was for an incorrect amount or that his payments were not credited. We further note that defendant's assertion that the stipulation was the product of duress and coercion was raised for the first time on appeal, more than [*3]five years after its execution.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.