Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v. Galasso

127 A.D.3d 688, 4 N.Y.S.3d 550
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 1, 2015
Docket2012-11345
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 688 (Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v. Galasso) 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
Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v. Galasso, 127 A.D.3d 688, 4 N.Y.S.3d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendant/third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), dated January 9, 2013, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate a stipulation of settlement and two judgments imposing sanctions against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into between the parties. Since, by stipulation, the underlying action was discontinued with prejudice, no action existed in which to file a motion, in effect, to vacate the stipulation of settlement. Rather, one who wishes to set aside a settlement made in an action that has been discontinued must proceed by plenary action (see D’Amico v Nuzzo, 194 AD2d 761 *689 [1993]; cf. Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51 [1979]). In any event, the appellant failed to demonstrate a basis for vacating the stipulation of settlement (see Yan Ping Liang v Wei Xuan Gao, 118 AD3d 696 [2014]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, to vacate two judgments imposing sanctions against him, made on the grounds of newly-discovered evidence or fraud. The appellant failed to present either newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at trial, would have produced a different result (see CPLR 5015 [a] [2]), or any evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiffs or the third-party defendant (see CPLR 5015 [a] [3]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Riccio v. Kukaj
219 A.D.3d 1540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Goltz
2021 NY Slip Op 06671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trustee for CSMC Trust 2011-11 v. Xiaoling Shirley He
2017 NY Slip Op 5130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Estate of Abrams v. Seaview Ass'n of Fire Island New York, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 688, 4 N.Y.S.3d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galasso-langione-botter-llp-v-galasso-nyappdiv-2015.