I call that a bargain! — Stipulations of Settlement

Posted on April 23, 2025 by Richard Klass

It has been said that a good settlement is one where both sides walk away equally unhappy.

In a corporate dissolution proceeding involving several hundred acres of land, both sides went to trial after years of litigation despite numerous attempts to resolve the case. Finally, at trial, the shareholders came to a settlement as to the disposition of the real estate owned by the corporation, in which the acreage would be sold off to a real estate investor.

The stipulation of settlement was read aloud on the record before the judge, with each side of shareholders having been represented by counsel. [See footnote 1] The judge allocuted each of the parties as to their consent to the stipulation.

Almost a year after reaching the settlement, one side moved to set aside the settlement, claiming that the other side had a conflict of interest in failing to disclose his relationship with a third party who was going to purchase the property owned by the corporation.

Stipulations of Settlement are favored under the law

In the seminal decision of Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 [1984], the New York State Court of Appeals held that “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside.” The statutory law embodied in Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] 2104 upholds this longstanding case law. [See footnote 2]

Strict enforcement of stipulations not only serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution but also is essential to the management of court calendars and the integrity of the litigation process. Consequently, ‘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’ (id.; see, Hillcrest Realty Co. v Gottlieb, 234 A.D.2d 270, 271, 651 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56; Citibank v. Rathjen, 202 A.D.2d 235, 608 N.Y.S.2d 453, lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 850, 617 N.Y.S.2d 139, 641 N.E.2d 160; Matter of Janet L. [Gillray L.], 200 A.D.2d 801, 803, 606 N.Y.S.2d 431, lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 83 N.Y.2d 941, 615 N.Y.S.2d 869, 639 N.E.2d 409).’ Robison v Borelli, 239 AD2d 656, 657 [3d Dept 1997].

Only ‘Good Cause’—fraud, collusion, mistake, duress or unconscionability—can set aside a stipulation of settlement

The motion to set aside the stipulation of settlement set forth a laundry list of allegations without any supporting proof (The affidavit simply alleged, “we are now very much concerned about fraud and collusion, as well as mistake or accident.”). Responding to the motion, Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, argued that no ‘good cause’ was proven and the motion should be denied.

In Myristica, LLC v Camp Myristica, Ltd., 201 AD3d 1078, 1080-81 [3d Dept 2022], the court declared that open court stipulations should be held to be iron clad and undisturbed absent good cause shown:

A stipulation of settlement placed on the record by counsel in open court is binding, all the more so when, as here, the parties contemporaneously confirm their acceptance on the record” (Birches at Schoharie, L.P. v. Schoharie Senior Gen. Partner LLC, 169 A.D.3d 1192, 1194, 94 N.Y.S.3d 412 [2019] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 2104). “To be enforceable, an open court stipulation must contain all of the material terms and evince a clear mutual accord between the parties” (Birches at Schoharie, L.P. v. Schoharie Senior Gen. Partner LLC, 169 A.D.3d at 1194, 94 N.Y.S.3d 412 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). “When a stipulation meets these requirements, as it does here, courts should construe it as an independent contract subject to settled principles of contractual interpretation [and] … courts should not disturb a valid stipulation absent a showing of good cause such as fraud, collusion, mistake or duress or unless the agreement is unconscionable” (McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 302, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714 [2002] [citations omitted]; see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 [1984]; New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v. A & T Healthcare, Inc., 171 A.D.3d 1277, 1278, 101 N.Y.S.3d 212 [2019]; Liquori v. Liquori, 106 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 966 N.Y.S.2d 543 [2013]).

It was urged that the motion did not set forth any cause to disturb the stipulation reached in open court. In React Serv., Inc. v Rindos, 243 AD2d 552, 552 [2d Dept 1997], the court specifically rejected this type of challenge to a stipulation of settlement, holding:

A party will be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during the course of litigation only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, duress, overreaching, or mistake (see, Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149–150, 324 N.Y.S.2d 36, 272 N.E.2d 543). Here, the plaintiff’s bare allegations of fraud, mutual mistake, etc., are insufficient to set aside the stipulation.” [emphasis added]

No complaining over a change of heart

It just became very obvious that the other side merely soured on the deal they struck – and decided to put up every obstacle to stop the corporate property from being sold.

It was requested that the judge take notice, as the court did in Stefanovich v Boisvert, 271 AD2d 727, 728 [3d Dept 2000], that the “defendants simply had a change of heart and decided that they no longer wished to comply with the terms of the stipulation or execute the previously agreed-upon boundary agreement. Neither defendants’ change of heart nor their belated attempt to argue a mistake … provides a valid basis for modifying the terms of the stipulation of settlement.” Based on the arguments set forth above, the judge denied the motion and upheld the stipulation of settlement.

Footnotes

[1]

This Court informed the parties of its binding effect by stating: “Recognizing that under CPLR 2104, a stipulation reached in open court is binding on the parties to this action. So, I’m going to first of all, with respect to counsel, ask counsel whether they agree and stipulate to the terms that have been placed on the record.”

[2]

CPLR 2104 provides: “An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered. With respect to stipulations of settlement and notwithstanding the form of the stipulation of settlement, the terms of such stipulation shall be filed by the defendant with the county clerk.”

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

keywords:
#CourtStreetLawyer #Stipulation #Settlement #newyork #litigation

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

.
Previous post

Harm caused by professional negligence

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Richard Klass

In Betz v Blatt, 211 AD3d 1004 [2d Dept 2022], the court held:

Although an attorney representing the executor of an estate, generally, is not liable to the beneficiaries of the estate (see Kramer v. Belfi, 106 A.D.2d 615, 616, 482 N.Y.S.2d 898), as the attorney does not represent the estate itself (see Betz v. Blatt, 116 A.D.3d at 816, 984 N.Y.S.2d 378; Matter of Hof, 102 A.D.2d 591, 593, 478 N.Y.S.2d 39), when fraud, collusion, malicious acts, or other special circumstances exist, an attorney may be liable to those third parties, even though not in privity with them, for harm caused by professional negligence (see Davis v. Farrell Fritz, P.C., 201 A.D.3d 869, 871, 163 N.Y.S.3d 82; Betz v. Blatt, 160 A.D.3d at 698, 74 N.Y.S.3d 75).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #estate #harm

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Next post
Previous post

No single statute of limitations for causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty

Posted on January 20, 2023 by Richard Klass

In Jadidian v Goldstein, 210 AD3d 969, 969-70 [2d Dept 2022], the court affirmed the dismissal of a claim against an attorney based on the statute of limitations, holding:

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. There is no single statute of limitations for causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty (see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d 766, 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243). “Where the relief sought is equitable in nature, the statute of limitations is six years, and where the relief sought is purely monetary, the statute of limitations is generally three years” (Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d at 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243). However, “regardless of the relief sought, ‘where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)’ ” (id., quoting IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d at 139, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; see McDonnell v. Bradley, 109 A.D.3d 592, 594, 970 N.Y.S.2d 612). A cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty “accrues at the time of the [alleged] breach, even though the injured party may not know of the existence of the wrong or injury” (Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d at 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sternberg v Continuum Health Partners, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 1554, 1557, 131 N.Y.S.3d 356).

Here, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was subject to a three-year statute of limitations since the relief sought was monetary in nature and the complaint failed to allege all the requisite elements of fraud, including justifiable reliance (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 562, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976; IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d at 140, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; Oppedisano v. D’Agostino, 196 A.D.3d 497, 499, 151 N.Y.S.3d 150). As the plaintiffs maintain, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty began to run, at the latest, on January 11, 2016, when the defendants allegedly commenced the prior legal malpractice action “to cover up their … negligence.” Thus, since the plaintiffs did not commence the instant action until March 24, 2021, more than three years later, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was time-barred.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #statuteoflimitations #breach

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Next post
Previous post

…issue of collateral estoppel concerning a matter previously litigated…

Posted on November 7, 2019 by Richard Klass

In Gobindram v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 175 AD3d 586, 589-91 [2d Dept 2019], the state court considered the issue of collateral estoppel concerning a matter previously litigated in the federal bankruptcy court. The court held:

“The doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers” (Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446, 464, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941). “[T]he principle that a wrongdoer should not profit from his own misconduct is so strong in New York that … the defense applies even in difficult cases and should not be weakened by exceptions” (id. at 464, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “The defense requires intentional conduct on the part of the plaintiff” (Sacher v. Beacon Assoc. Mgt. Corp., 114 A.D.3d 655, 657, 980 N.Y.S.2d 121; see Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d at 474, 912 N.Y.S.2d 508, 938 N.E.2d 941).

Scales of justice illustrating article about legal malpractice.

Collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same (see Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914; Shifer v. Shifer, 165 A.D.3d 721, 723, 85 N.Y.S.3d 92). There must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling (see Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d at 303–304, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914; Shifer v. Shifer, 165 A.D.3d at 723, 85 N.Y.S.3d 92).

Here, the federal courts in the plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding finally adjudicated a mixed issue of law and fact identical to that raised by the in pari delicto defense asserted by the defendants in the current legal malpractice action, i.e., the plaintiff’s culpability in connection with the filing of the inaccurate bankruptcy petition. Those courts found that the plaintiff knowingly and intentionally made a false and fraudulent statement under oath by swearing that he had read the SOFA and that it was true and correct, and that the plaintiff’s alleged reliance on the defendants to accurately prepare the bankruptcy submissions did not negate his fraudulent intent. These findings established that the plaintiff was in pari delicto with the defendants to the extent that he alleges they acted negligently in preparing and filing the inaccurate bankruptcy petition. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the legal malpractice cause of action as sought to recover damages for the defendants’ preparation and filing of the inaccurate bankruptcy petition based on the doctrines of collateral estoppel and in pari delicto.

However, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the legal malpractice cause of action as sought to recover damages for the defendants’ failure to amend the bankruptcy petition. The findings of the federal courts regarding the knowing and fraudulent conduct on the plaintiff’s part related solely to the initial filing; they made no determination that the plaintiff acted knowingly and fraudulently in failing to file an amended petition. Accordingly, that part of the plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action is not subject to dismissal on the grounds of collateral estoppel and in pari delicto.

As an alternative ground for affirmance (see Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545–546, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241), the defendants contend that the legal malpractice cause of action should have been dismissed in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), since the parties’ evidentiary submissions on the motion established that the plaintiff hired subsequent counsel who had ample opportunity to rectify their alleged error in this regard (see e.g. Perks v. Lauto & Garabedian, 306 A.D.2d 261, 262, 760 N.Y.S.2d 231). This contention lacks merit.

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511; see Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756, 874 N.E.2d 720). “When evidentiary material is considered, the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [she or] he has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, … dismissal should not eventuate” (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17).

Here, the record reveals that the plaintiff did not retain the services of new counsel until December 2011. By that time, the bankruptcy trustee had already noted inconsistencies in the petition and requested an accounting relating to the omitted tax refund transfers, and the plaintiff’s creditors had commenced the adversary proceeding. Giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511), this time line suggests that the defendants, not the subsequent attorney, represented the plaintiff at the time when a voluntary amendment to the petition could have significantly reduced the prospect of a finding that the plaintiff made a false and fraudulent statement in the bankruptcy petition (see In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, 111 [1st Cir.]; Matter of Kilson, 83 B.R. 198, 203 [D. Conn.]). Accordingly, at this preliminary stage of the litigation, the defendants have failed to conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff’s subsequent attorney had a sufficient opportunity to correct their alleged error in failing to amend the petition, such that they did not proximately cause any damages flowing from that error (see generally Tooma v. Grossbarth, 121 A.D.3d 1093, 1096, 995 N.Y.S.2d 593; Grant v. LaTrace, 119 A.D.3d 646, 647, 990 N.Y.S.2d 227).

We find unpersuasive the defendants’ additional alternative contention that the legal malpractice cause of action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) because that cause of action belongs to the bankruptcy estate and the plaintiff lacked standing to assert it. “On a defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing” (BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Rychik, 161 A.D.3d 924, 925, 77 N.Y.S.3d 522; see CPLR 3211[a][3]; MLB Sub I, LLC v. Bains, 148 A.D.3d 881, 881–882). “[T]he motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” (U.S. Bank N.A. v. Clement, 163 A.D.3d 742, 743, 81 N.Y.S.3d 116 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see MLB Sub I, LLC v. Bains, 148 A.D.3d at 882, 50 N.Y.S.3d 410).

Here, in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action was the property of the bankruptcy estate (see Wright v. Meyers & Spencer, LLP, 46 A.D.3d 805, 849 N.Y.S.2d 274; Williams v. Stein, 6 A.D.3d 197, 198, 775 N.Y.S.2d 255; In re Strada Design Assoc., Inc., 326 B.R. 229, 237–240 [S.D. N.Y.]), the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the bankruptcy trustee had abandoned the cause of action in accordance with Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) § 554(a) and had authorized the plaintiff to pursue it. Accordingly, dismissal of the legal malpractice cause of action for lack of standing is not available at this juncture.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Plaintiff claimed attorney malpracticed with regard to a settlement

Posted on November 29, 2017 by Richard Klass

In Freeman v Brecher, 2017 NY Slip Op 07949 [1st Dept Nov. 14, 2017], the plaintiff claimed that the attorney malpracticed with regard to a settlement. In affirming the dismissal of the case, the appellate court held that,

“Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice in connection with an underlying settlement fails to state a cause of action in the absence of allegations that the “settlement … was effectively compelled by the mistakes of [defendant] counsel” (Bernstein v. Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 430, 554 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept.1990] ) or the result of fraud or coercion (see Beattie v. Brown & Wood, 243 A.D.2d 395, 663 N.Y.S.2d 199 [1st Dept.1997] ). Plaintiff’s equivocal denial of knowledge of the terms of the settlement is flatly contradicted by the clear terms of the settlement agreement (see Bishop v. Maurer, 33 A.D.3d 497, 499, 823 N.Y.S.2d 366 [1st Dept.2006], affd. 9 N.Y.3d 910, 844 N.Y.S.2d 165, 875 N.E.2d 883 [2007] ). Additionally, plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory allegations of proximately caused damages cannot serve as a basis for a legal malpractice claim (see Pellegrino v. File, 291 A.D.2d 60, 63, 738 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1st Dept.2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 606, 746 N.Y.S.2d 456, 774 N.E.2d 221 [2002] ). Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the same conduct was correctly dismissed as duplicative of the legal malpractice claim (see Garnett v. Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 A.D.3d 435, 436, 918 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept.2011]; InKine Pharm. Co. v. Coleman, 305 A.D.2d 151, 152, 759 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept.2003] ).”