ACJ Assoc. LLC v Kelly

[*1] ACJ Assoc. LLC v Kelly 2014 NY Slip Op 50149(U) Decided on February 7, 2014 Appellate Term, First 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 7, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570729/14.

ACJ Associates LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, - -

against

Cynthia Kelly a/k/a Cynthia J. Kelly, a/k/a Cynthia J. Felton, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- Stephanie Kelly, Respondent-Appellant, -and- "John Doe," Respondent.

Tenant Cynthia Kelly and respondent Stephanie Kelly appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Timmie E. Elsner, J.), entered May 13, 2013, which denied their motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Timmie E. Elsner, J.), entered May 13, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Appellants failed to establish legal cause to vacate the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying holdover summary proceeding. Stipulations in settlement of disputes are judicially favored and not lightly set aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). We find unavailing appellants' claims that the court exerted undue pressure, amounting to legal duress, in overseeing the settlement process. In order to prove legal duress, a party must adduce proof that "a wrongful threat preclud[ed] the exercise of his free will" (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 130 [1971]), a showing not here made by appellants. General contentions that a party felt pressured by the court are insufficient to establish duress (see Ross v Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus, 26 AD3d 321, 322 [2006]). Further, appellants benefitted from the stipulation, and then waited more than a full year after its execution before moving to vacate it (see Board of Mgrs. of Atrium Condominium v West 79th st. [*2]Corp. 19 AD3d 241, 241 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: February 07, 2014