Przewlocki v. City of Lackawanna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Przewlocki v. City of Lackawanna

112 A.D.2d 757, 492 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56128

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 757 (Przewlocki v. City of Lackawanna) 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

Przewlocki v. City of Lackawanna, 112 A.D.2d 757, 492 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion to resettle a stipulation and order settling her action against defendant on the grounds that the stipulation was based on mistake and that defendant has not complied with the terms thereof. "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 (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150)” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230); the record here is devoid of such evidence. Plaintiff’s remedy for defendant’s alleged noncompliance with the terms of the stipulation is not resettlement thereof but a proceeding to enforce (see generally, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — set aside settlement.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion to resettle a stipulation and order settling her action against defendant on the grounds that the stipulation was based on mistake and that defendant has not complied with the terms thereof. "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 (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150)” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230); the record here is devoid of such evidence. Plaintiff’s remedy for defendant’s alleged noncompliance with the terms of the stipulation is not resettlement thereof but a proceeding to enforce (see generally, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — set aside settlement.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 757, 492 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/przewlocki-v-city-of-lackawanna-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack