Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants' challenge to the stipulation of settlement entered into in this action is unpersuasive. The credible evidence in the record refutes the appellants' claim that the attorney who agreed to the settlement on their behalf failed to explain the significance of the term "with prejudice", and they have failed to establish any valid basis for vacating the stipulation of settlement ( see, Yuzary v. Yuzary, 223 A.D.2d 540; Arvelo v. Multi Trucking, 194 A.D.2d 758).
S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.