July 14, 2009

Liberty Med. Group, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51486(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Liberty Medical Group, P.C. entered into a stipulation to settle a first party no-fault benefits action with New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company in 2002. The main issue decided was whether the stipulation was enforceable, as the defendant sought to vacate it, claiming it was based on fraud. The holding of the court was that the defendant failed to provide any competent evidence to support their claim that the stipulation was unenforceable, and that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly set aside. The court also noted that the defendant had failed to demonstrate any basis to excuse it from complying with the terms to which it had assented, and may not avoid its enforceability by claiming that the plaintiff's claims were the product of fraud. Therefore, the motion to vacate the stipulation was denied, and the decision of the court was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Liberty Med. Group, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51486(U))

Liberty Med. Group, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51486(U)) [*1]

Liberty Med. Group, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 51486(U) [24 Misc 3d 135(A)]

Decided on July 14, 2009

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 14, 2009

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
.

Liberty Medical Group, P.C. a/a/o Angie Fernandez, Plaintiff-Respondent,570511/08
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia L. Rodriguez, J.), entered October 16, 2007, which denied its motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and to dismiss the action.

Per Curiam.

Order (Julia L. Rodriguez, J.), entered October 16, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a 2002 stipulation settling this action for first party no-fault benefits. Defendant failed to proffer any competent evidence in support of its belated claim that the stipulation was unenforceable because it was “premised on fraud.” “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). While defendant, five years later, is intent on revisiting the propriety of a stipulation entered into upon the advise of counsel, it has failed to demonstrate any basis to excuse it from complying with the terms to which it assented, and may not avoid its enforceability by claiming, in conclusory fashion, that plaintiff’s underlying no-fault claims “appear to be the product of fraud.” As the motion court properly noted, the information regarding plaintiff’s corporate status was available to defendant when the stipulation was entered into in 2002.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 14, 2009