Myrtle Partners, LLC v Chrichlow

[*1] Myrtle Partners, LLC v Chrichlow 2007 NY Slip Op 51388(U) [16 Misc 3d 1111(A)] Decided on July 12, 2007 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County Ash, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through August 1, 2007; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 12, 2007
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Myrtle Partners, LLC, Petitioner,

against

Ingrid Chrichlow and John and Jane Doe, Respondent,



66211/2006

Sylvia G. Ash, J.

Respondent seeks to restore the above matter to the trial calendar.

On March 29, 2007, the parties through their attorneys, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement wherein Petitioner agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $3,313.90 by check. The parties further agreed that once the check cleared, all claims by either party would be fully satisfied and the matter deemed discontinued with prejudice. The Stipulation of Settlement was duly signed by the attorney for the Petitioner and the attorney for the Respondent.

Respondent alleges that on the eve of the Court hearing, the attorneys for the parties negotiated the full return of Respondent's security deposit in the sum of $3,819.30. Respondent further alleges that he misread the amount in the stipulation, that the stipulation was drafted by Petitioner's counsel and incorrectly listed the amount due Respondent as $3,319.90[FN1] instead of $3,819.30, and that it was the intent of the parties to return the full security deposit. Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner requesting that the $500.00 difference be returned to Respondent.

Petitioner argues that the Stipulation of Settlement did not characterize what the settlement amount represented. That the Stipulation of Settlement provided that the matter is settled in full settlement of all claims by and between the parties, that the stipulation was signed by two attorneys, that there was nothing vague about the language of the stipulation and that there was no mistake made in the Stipulation. [*2]

It is well settled that Stipulations of Settlement "are favored by the Courts and [are] not lightly cast aside (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). 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" (id.).

The Respondent makes no allegation of fraud or collusion as a basis for vacating the stipulation. Respondent's argument that it was the intent of the parties to return the full security deposit implies that there was a mistake or accident which warrants relief from the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation was the product of negotiations between the attorneys for both parties. The language of the stipulation is silent as to the basis or the quid-pro-quo for the terms of the settlement. There is no language in the stipulation stating that the amount agreed to was for the return of Respondent's security deposit. The stipulation simply states that the amount agreed to is in full satisfaction of all claims either party shall have against the other. In the absence of clear language specifying the reason for the settlement, this Court declines to look beyond the terms and speculate as to what was intended by the parties (see Burruano v. Burruano, 11 Misc 3d 135(A)[2006]. Here the writing in the stipulation is clear on its face and presents no ambiguity. It is axiomatic that "when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should...be enforced according to its terms." (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]; WWW Assocs v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]; Bayside Plaza Associates LLC v. Deli Bizz 24 Inc., 14 Misc 3d 1233(A) [2007]. Respondent's argument must therefore be rejected.

Based on the above, Respondent has failed to establish any legal reasons to vacate the Stipulation of Settlement. Therefore, Respondent's motion to restore this matter to the calendar is hereby denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with Notice of Entry upon the Respondent within twenty days from this order.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: The Court notes that the Stipulation of Settlement list the settlement amount as$3,313.90 not $3,319.90 as stated by Respondent.



DATED: July 12, 2007__________________________________

SYLVIA G. ASH, J.C.C.