Personnel v. Rera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Personnel v. Rera

203 A.D.2d 401, 612 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4010

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 401 (Personnel v. Rera) 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

Personnel v. Rera, 203 A.D.2d 401, 612 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enforce a lien on the proceeds of a lawsuit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated July 8, 1992, which, upon reargument, vacated that portion of an order of the same court, dated January 23, 1992, which directed that the sum of $35,975.34 be placed in escrow pending resolution of the action and thereupon directed that that sum be returned to the defendant Philip Rera.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, released the funds from escrow to Philip Rera, and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination; as so modified the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

We find that the Supreme Court erred in rendering a decision which was contrary to the terms of a valid stipulation entered into between the parties, as it is well-settled that a stipulation may only be vacated on grounds which would entitle the court to set aside a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143; Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 854).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enforce a lien on the proceeds of a lawsuit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated July 8, 1992, which, upon reargument, vacated that portion of an order of the same court, dated January 23, 1992, which directed that the sum of $35,975.34 be placed in escrow pending resolution of the action and thereupon directed that that sum be returned to the defendant Philip Rera.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, released the funds from escrow to Philip Rera, and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination; as so modified the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

We find that the Supreme Court erred in rendering a decision which was contrary to the terms of a valid stipulation entered into between the parties, as it is well-settled that a stipulation may only be vacated on grounds which would entitle the court to set aside a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143; Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 854).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 401, 612 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/personnel-v-rera-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack