Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the judgment must be dismissed because the judgment was entered upon the stipulation of the parties (see, Katz v Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536).
The defendant proceeded pro se at the trial of this action. His claim on appeal that he should not have been permitted to enter into an open court stipulation of settlement without representation by counsel is not supported by the record. The record clearly indicates that he knowingly and intelligently opted to proceed pro se and had discharged his prior counsel (see, CPLR 321), against the strong advice of the Trial Justice to retain him. In fact the Trial Justice had denied counsel's repeated requests to withdraw as the defendant's attorney of record.
Furthermore, it is well established that a party is entitled to self-representation (see, CPLR 321; People v McIntyre, 36 N.Y.2d 10). The defendant, a 44-year-old, well-educated professional engineer, who has knowledge of court procedures, and has brought numerous pro se motions and appeals, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (see, People v Miley, 154 A.D.2d 559), and the stipulation of settlement was fair in every respect (see, Tesoriero v Tesoriero, 114 A.D.2d 1027; see also, Russo v Probber, 135 A.D.2d 702). Therefore, the defendant was properly permitted to proceed pro se and he "may not now be heard to complain that he was prejudiced as a result thereof" (Tesoriero v Tesoriero, supra, at 1027).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.