Opinion
Argued September 4, 2001.
September 24, 2001.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Estate of Gustave Berko, Pauline Boloker, Paul Berko, Jerome Berko, Henrietta Berko, Estate of Solomon Berko, Albert Berko, Florence Berko, Patricia Berko-Kantro, David Berko, Jay Berko, Barbara Berko, and Lorraine Berko appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 27, 1999, which granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiff and these defendants dated January 21, 1999.
Seligson, Rothman Rothman, New York, N.Y. (Martin S. Rothman, Stewart E. Rothman, and Alyne I. Diamond of counsel), for appellants.
Robert Allan Muir Associates, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, since a foreclosure action was still pending at the time the parties entered into their agreement to discontinue that action with prejudice, the Supreme Court retained the power to supervise and enforce the terms of the agreement (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v. Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51, 54; Arguelles v. Arguelles, 251 A.D.2d 611). As the plaintiff satisfied the conditions precedent of the agreement, the appellants were obligated to fulfill the conditions imposed upon them by it (see, Oppenheimer Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685, 690; Merritt Hill Vineyards v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106, 112). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the appellants to comply with the terms of the agreement.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.