Opinion
2005-458 N C.
Decided February 1, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the City Court of Glen Cove, Nassau County (Richard J. McCord, J.), entered December 20, 2004. The order denied plaintiff's motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement and granted defendants an extension of time to comply.
Order affirmed without costs.
PRESENT:: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and McCABE, JJ
Pursuant to the parties' June 22, 2004 stipulation of settlement, defendants were to pay plaintiff $1,750 within 30 days or suffer entry of a judgment for $3,000 and costs. On the 30th day, defendants mailed the payment via a personal check. On July 26, 2004, plaintiff rejected the payment on the ground that the check was postdated July 31, 2004, thereby violating the stipulation, and moved for the entry of a judgment in the default amount.
Although "stipulations of settlement are favored and in general will be enforced in accordance with their terms" ( Everett D. Jennings Apts., L.P. v. Jones, 4 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50773[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]; see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230), pursuant to the well-settled rule that a stipulation's enforcement is "subject to the supervision of the courts" ( J H Mgt. Corp. v. W.W.R.S Automotive Inc., 7 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50742[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists] [citing Malvin v. Schwartz, 65 AD2d 769, affd 48 NY2d 693), a court may relieve a party from the consequences of enforcement where such "would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage" ( Bank of N.Y. v. Forlini, 220 AD2d 377, 378). The determination of the court below, in effect, that defendants' initial proffer of payment occurred on terms representing substantial compliance with the stipulation was entirely appropriate under the circumstances presented. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and McCabe, JJ., concur.