Fabrizi v. Kramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fabrizi v. Kramer

209 A.D.2d 615, 619 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11458

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 615 (Fabrizi v. Kramer) 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

Fabrizi v. Kramer, 209 A.D.2d 615, 619 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), entered February 11, 1993, which granted the petitioner’s motion to enforce stated portions of a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not err in directing the appellant to comply with the provisions of a stipulation which was entered into by the parties in open court with their counsel present. The terms of the stipulation were clear, and, in the absence of evidence that the stipulation was predicated upon fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, the appellant was not entitled to relief from its consequences (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Bellefleur v Gervais, 201 AD2d 524; Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 854).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), entered February 11, 1993, which granted the petitioner’s motion to enforce stated portions of a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not err in directing the appellant to comply with the provisions of a stipulation which was entered into by the parties in open court with their counsel present. The terms of the stipulation were clear, and, in the absence of evidence that the stipulation was predicated upon fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, the appellant was not entitled to relief from its consequences (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Bellefleur v Gervais, 201 AD2d 524; Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 854).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 615, 619 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabrizi-v-kramer-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack