Graham v. New York City Housing Authority

260 A.D.2d 541, 688 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 19, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 541 (Graham v. New York City Housing Authority) 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
Graham v. New York City Housing Authority, 260 A.D.2d 541, 688 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action [542]*542to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated April 9, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and to compel the plaintiff, in effect, to comply with the parties’ "post mediation agreement” dated August 30, 1995, and restored the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed, and the parties are directed to comply with the “post mediation agreement” dated August 30, 1995.

The Supreme Court erred in setting aside the mediated settlement of this action reached by the parties, which was memorialized in a “post mediation agreement” signed by the parties’ respective attorneys, dated August 30, 1995. Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). The plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing in this case. Accordingly, because the mediated settlement constituted a valid resolution of the plaintiff’s claim, the Supreme Court should" have granted the defendant’s motion.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contention. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chang v. Guzman
2024 NY Slip Op 51622(U) (NYC Civil Court, Queens, 2024)
Ebaid v. PV Holding Corp.
210 A.D.3d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D.2d 541, 688 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.