DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on Claimant, Eugene Eppes’ Order to Show Cause to enter judgment for failure to comply with the Stipulation as provided for in the Stipulation and restoring the case to the calendar for trial on a date certain. Claimant and Defendant appeared on September 26, 2024, and defendant argued to vacate the Stipulation of Settlement signed by both parties on June 27, 2024, and “So Ordered’ by Judge Cynthia Isales. Defendant did not file any motion nor request that his counterclaim be reinstated. Claimant argued that the settlement should be upheld. However, in opposition defendant insisted that they did not agree and would not be paying any money to claimant. The Stipulation of Settlement states in pertinent part that “the parties agreed to settle all claims for the sum of $2,500.00 to be paid by defendant to claimant on or before August 15, 2024.” It further states that “in the event debtor fails to make payment as agreed to above, creditor, upon completing the Affidavit below setting forth such default, shall be entitled to a) enter Judgment, without further notice to the Debtor, for the amount originally sued for/agreed to without further notice to defendant. The court recognizes the long-established principle that “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside.” (Hallock v. State, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). “This is all the more so in the case of ‘open court’ stipulations…where strict enforcement not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process.” (id. at 230 [internal citation omitted]. The Court of Appeals has stated that good cause to set aside a stipulation usually requires proof of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or some other ground of the same nature. (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150 [1971]). Pursuant to CPLR §2104, a settlement agreement is binding upon a party if it is in writing subscribed either by the party or its counsel. (Martin v. Harrington, 139 AD3d 1017, 1018, 31 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2d Dept. 2016].) To be enforceable, a settlement agreement must set forth all material terms, and there must be clear mutual accord between the parties. (Id.) Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not to be lightly set aside. (Young v. Young, 178 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 115 N.Y.S.3d 81 [2d Dept. 2019].) However, since settlement agreements are subject to the principles of contract law, ‘for an enforceable agreement to exist, all material terms must be set forth and there must be a manifestation of mutual assent.’ (Forcelli v. Gelco Corp., 109 A.D.3d 244, 248, 972 N.Y.S.2d 570 [2d Dept. 2013].) Recently, it was held that “a stipulation can be vacated due to mutual mistake.” (See Nieves v. Mount Sinai Queens Hospital, 216 N.Y.S.3d 845 [Supreme Court, Queens County 2024]). A party seeking to vacate or set aside a settlement has the burden of establishing good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, “such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable, in order to be relieved from the consequences of the stipulation.” (Amerally v. Liberty King Produce. Inc., 170 A.D.3d 637, 638, 95 N.Y.S.3d 338 [2d Dept. 2019].) An agreement may also be rescinded based on a mutual mistake by the parties when the agreement, in some material respect, does not represent the meeting of the minds of the parties. (Perretta v. Perretta, 187 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 130 N.Y.S.3d 727 [2d Dept. 2020].) In that situation, the party moving for vacatur of the agreement must demonstrate that the mistake existed at the time the settlement was entered into by the parties. (Id.; see also Matter of Garber, 154 A.D.3d 850, 851, 62 N.Y.S.3d 280 [2d Dept. 2017] [holding that to vacate a stipulation of settlement on the ground of mutual mistake, the appellant was required to demonstrate that the mistake existed at the time the stipulation was entered into and that it was so substantial that the stipulation failed to represent a true meeting of the parties' minds].) Accordingly. Defendant’s oral application to vacate the Stipulation of settlement is granted. (See Mahon v. NY City Health & Hosps. Corp., 303 A.D.2d 725, 756 N.Y.S.2d 875 [2d Dept. 2003].) The matter was restored to the calendar for immediate trial on consent of the parties. At trial, claimant testified that it sued for $3,189.00 for expenses incurred for veterinarian costs and other care of a dog loved by both parties. Defendant counterclaimed for $10,000.00 and testified he purchased and is the owner of the dog, Patch, and claimant took the dog from him. The relationship between the parties broke down resulting in separation and the dog was left in claimant’s possession. Unfortunately, during the trial, it was learned the dog had passed away on due to prostate disease in late fall of 2023, while in claimant’s possession but claimant did not notify the defendant. Defendant testified that although defendant signed the stipulation, he would not pay any money to Claimant and did not agree to comply with its terms. Therefore, the sole issue for the Court to decide is whether the Stipulation should be vacated based upon fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or no meeting of the minds. Defendant demonstrated that the Stipulation was based on a mistake and did not represent a true meeting of the minds, as Defendant denied agreeing to pay Claimant any money. Based on the credible evidence and testimony of the parties, it is hereby, ORDERED, Claimant’s Order to Show Cause to Enter Judgment is Denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, Defendant’s oral application to vacate the Stipulation is Granted; and it is further ORDERED, this matter is restored to the calendar for immediate trial held on September 26, 2024, on consent of the parties; and it is further ORDERED, after trial, Claimant’s action is hereby dismissed; and it is further ORDERED, Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED, Claimant shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of entry on Defendant within twenty (20) days and file proof of service with the Court. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: October 23, 2024
