Rabinovich v. Womack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabinovich v. Womack

57 A.D.3d 866, 868 N.Y.2d 924

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 866 (Rabinovich v. Womack) 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

Rabinovich v. Womack, 57 A.D.3d 866, 868 N.Y.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). “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” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] [citation omitted]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 302 [2002]; Moshe v Town of Ramapo, 54 AD3d 1030 [2008]; Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 610 [2008]; Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d 875 [2008]). The appellant failed to establish any legitimate basis to modify the subject stipulation. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). “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” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] [citation omitted]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 302 [2002]; Moshe v Town of Ramapo, 54 AD3d 1030 [2008]; Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 610 [2008]; Racanelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Tadco Constr. Corp., 50 AD3d 875 [2008]). The appellant failed to establish any legitimate basis to modify the subject stipulation. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 866, 868 N.Y.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinovich-v-womack-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack