Opinion
May 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants payable by the plaintiffs.
We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to allege any adequate ground sufficient to permit them to be relieved from the consequences of the stipulation of settlement made in open court (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224). We also reject the plaintiffs' contention that the stipulation was not final and binding but was entered into subject to the execution of a formal written document (see, Sontag v. Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, lv dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 554).
The plaintiffs' allegations of misconduct by their own attorney are insufficient to justify vacatur of the settlement (see, Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Bauer v. Lygren, 113 A.D.2d 913). To the extent that these allegations may have merit, the plaintiffs are relegated to an action against the attorney (see, Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Bauer v. Lygren, supra).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination herein. Weinstein, J.P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.