New York Med. & Diagnostic Ctr. v Nachande

[*1] New York Med. & Diagnostic Ctr. v Nachande 2017 NY Slip Op 51092(U) Decided on August 18, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 18, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-12 Q C

New York Medical & Diagnostic Center, Respondent,

against

Foster Nachande, Appellant.

Foster Nachande, appellant pro se. Paul J. Hooten, Esq., for respondent, (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered November 23, 2015. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, which was begun in Supreme Court and was removed to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement. Shortly thereafter, defendant moved to vacate the stipulation, and she appeals from the Civil Court's order denying her motion.

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and will not be set aside absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient to invalidate a contract (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143 [1971]; Cach, LLC v Woodsnajac, 42 Misc 3d 129[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52165[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). Here, the basis for defendant's motion to vacate the stipulation is that she entered into it under duress. However, in the order appealed from, the Civil Court noted that the stipulation had been entered [*2]into after a full conference between defendant and a court attorney, and that the court had so-ordered the stipulation only after determining that defendant understood its terms and that she was freely entering into it.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 18, 2017