Capital One Bank v Clavell

[*1] Capital One Bank v Clavell 2015 NY Slip Op 51072(U) Decided on July 13, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 13, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-801 Q C

Capital One Bank, Appellant, July 13, 2015

against

Ariel Clavell, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered January 8, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion to, in effect, vacate a stipulation of settlement and a judgment entered pursuant thereto.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion to, in effect, vacate the stipulation of settlement and the judgment entered pursuant thereto is denied.

In this action to recover the principal sum of $2,967.57 for breach of contract and based upon an account stated, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was "so-ordered" by the court, pursuant to which, among other things, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the total sum of $1,000 by making monthly payments of $50. In the event of a default under the terms of the stipulation, plaintiff was entitled to seek the entry of judgment for the full amount sued for. Defendant made one payment and thereafter defaulted. A judgment in the principal sum of $2,967.57 was entered in favor of plaintiff on November 21, 2007. In 2013, defendant moved to, in effect, vacate the stipulation of settlement and the judgment entered pursuant thereto. The Civil Court granted the motion.

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not easily be set aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]). While stipulations of settlements may be vacated on grounds sufficient to set aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake, collusion or accident (see Nash v Yablon-Nash, 61 AD3d 832 [2009]), a party should not be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation, particularly one made in "open court," absent a sufficient or compelling showing (see Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC v Williams, 38 Misc 3d 138[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50184[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Geraci v Jankowitz, 36 Misc 3d 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51354[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Citibank [SD] N.A. v Bissoon, 16 Misc 3d 127[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51265[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant's moving papers failed to offer any basis for why defendant did not comply with the stipulation or a sufficient ground for vacating it. Nevertheless, the court granted defendant's motion, directed plaintiff to return all monies collected, and placed the matter on the trial calendar, in effect vacating the stipulation of settlement, without ever addressing the stipulation of settlement in its decision. We find, under the circumstances presented, that the court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion to, in effect, vacate the stipulation of settlement and the judgment entered pursuant thereto is denied.

Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 13, 2015