From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gage v. Jay Bee Photographers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 29, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This appeal involves the dismissal of a complaint in a negligence action. The parties stipulated in open court that the negligence action would be settled for $2,500. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed and delivered to the defendant, a general release and stipulation discontinuing the action, which was to be held "in escrow" pending the plaintiff's receipt of the proceeds of the settlement. Allegedly, due to a clerical error, the settlement check was not sent to the plaintiff.

The court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion to restore the instant matter to the trial calendar based on the defendant's failure to pay the settlement amount. Subsequently, in an order dated June 9, 1994, the court granted the defendant's motion striking the matter from the trial calendar and directed the defendant to pay the settlement amount, plus interest, within thirty days. We now affirm the June 9, 1994, order.

"A stipulation is essentially a contract and may be enforced as such ( see, New York Bank for Sav. v Howard Cortlandt St., 106 A.D.2d 496). Where * * * there is an oral stipulation made in `open court,' it is valid and binding and will not be set aside on facts less than needed to avoid a contract, e.g., fraud, collusion, mistake, accident, or some other ground of similar nature ( see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; Matter of O'Garro v New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene, 46 N.Y.2d 853; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1; Rivera v Triple M. Roofing Corp., 116 A.D.2d 561)" ( Lazich v Vittoria Parker, 196 A.D.2d 526, 527-528; see also, Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v Royal Ins. Co., 247 N.Y. 435).

Moreover, strict enforcement of stipulations made in open court not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution, but is also essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process ( see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, supra). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gage v. Jay Bee Photographers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Gage v. Jay Bee Photographers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR GAGE, Appellant, v. JAY BEE PHOTOGRAPHERS, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 106

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Leogrande

Stipulations are especially favored where the parties have been represented by counsel ( Matter of Stark, 233…

In Matter of Siegel

Stipulations are especially favored where the parties have been represented by counsel ( Matter of Stark, 233…