Desantis v. Ariens Co.

17 A.D.3d 311, 792 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 311 (Desantis v. Ariens Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Desantis v. Ariens Co., 17 A.D.3d 311, 792 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated June 3, 2004, as denied their motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 302 [2002]; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Cavalli v Cavalli, 226 AD2d 666 [1996]).

The plaintiffs’ contentions that they entered into the settlement under duress because they were in shock over the jury’s verdict and were given only a few minutes by the court to make a decision regarding the settlement, if true, were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the stipulation of settlement. “In order to prove legal duress, a party must adduce evidence that a wrongful threat precluded the exercise of the party’s free will (Sontag v Sontag, 114 AD2d 892, 894 [1985]). Generalized contentions that a party felt pressured by the court are insufficient (Sontag v Sontag, supra)” (Cavalli v Cavalli, supra at 667). The injured plaintiffs statements amounted to nothing more than a generalized contention that he felt pressured to make a decision regarding the settlement offer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

N.J.L v. C.A.L
2024 NY Slip Op 50140(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
Vasileva v. Christy
2021 NY Slip Op 04053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Shah v. Mitra
2019 NY Slip Op 2739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Lopez v. Muttana
2016 NY Slip Op 7628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
State v. Robert C.
113 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Colon v. Rite Fold Corp.
106 A.D.3d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Isa Adler v. Skiros Corp.
66 A.D.3d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Blackstock v. Price
51 A.D.3d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Ross v. Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus
26 A.D.3d 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Estate Irace
21 A.D.3d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 311, 792 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desantis-v-ariens-co-nyappdiv-2005.