Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
"`It is well settled that stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where, as here, the terms are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by competent counsel'" (Zwirn v Zwirn, 153 A.D.2d 854, 855, quoting Bossom v Bossom, 141 A.D.2d 794, 795), and the party has enjoyed the benefits of the bargain (Beutel v Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957). Relief will be granted only upon a showing of "cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident" (Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230). Increases in the cost of medical and personal necessities are insufficient grounds to set aside the settlement agreement herein which has been in effect for 10 years. A stipulation is not unconscionable simply because it may in hindsight not be as favorable as originally anticipated (Golfinopoulos v Golfinopoulos, 144 A.D.2d 537, 538, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 793).
Further, as defendant submitted documentary evidence of continued payment of monthly checks, which plaintiff failed to refute, the court properly granted the motion for summary judgment (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.