Hansen v. Maine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen v. Maine

223 A.D.2d 675, 637 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 704

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 675 (Hansen v. Maine) 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

Hansen v. Maine, 223 A.D.2d 675, 637 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a stipulation of settlement, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 4, 1994, which granted their motion for summary judgment only to the extent of directing the parties to comply with a 1986 stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs correctly assert that absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, an open-court stipulation will not be disturbed by a court (see, Doppelt v Doppelt, 215 AD2d 715). However, the trial court enforced the stipulation exactly as it was agreed upon by the parties and did not impermissibly alter or modify the terms thereof.

[676]*676The plaintiffs’ remaining contention, regarding an inquest to determine the amount of damages owed to them, was not raised in the trial court and is not properly before this Court on appeal (see, Robinson v Donald C. Swanson, Inc., 205 AD2d 678). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a stipulation of settlement, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 4, 1994, which granted their motion for summary judgment only to the extent of directing the parties to comply with a 1986 stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs correctly assert that absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, an open-court stipulation will not be disturbed by a court (see, Doppelt v Doppelt, 215 AD2d 715). However, the trial court enforced the stipulation exactly as it was agreed upon by the parties and did not impermissibly alter or modify the terms thereof.

[676]*676The plaintiffs’ remaining contention, regarding an inquest to determine the amount of damages owed to them, was not raised in the trial court and is not properly before this Court on appeal (see, Robinson v Donald C. Swanson, Inc., 205 AD2d 678). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 675, 637 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-maine-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack