On March 20, 2024, the Second Department issued a decision in Riesenburger Props., LLLP v. Pi Assoc., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 01570, holding that a defendant had failed to meet the high burden necessary to vacate a stipulation of settlement, explaining:
Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside, and are to be enforced with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance as long as they are clear, final and the product of mutual accord. A stipulation of settlement which is made in open court by parties who are represented by counsel and who unequivocally agree to its terms will not be set aside absent a showing that the stipulation was tainted by mistake, fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability. It is the party seeking to set aside the stipulation of settlement who has the burden of showing that the agreement was the result of fraud, duress, or overreaching, or that its terms were unconscionable.
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to demonstrate that the stipulation should be set aside as unconscionable. A stipulation of settlement is unconscionable if it is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense. However, a stipulation of settlement is not unconscionable simply because it might have been improvident or one-sided. Here, the defendants failed to establish that the terms of the stipulation pertaining to amounts awarded for use and occupancy were unconscionable, as the stipulation provided the defendants with meaningful bargained-for benefits. Specifically, the stipulation released the defendants from liability for Carat’s continued use and occupancy of the premises in exchange for paying agreed-upon monthly amounts that were significantly below the fair market value of the premises from December 2014 through November 2019 as calculated by the plaintiff’s appraiser.
Furthermore, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the attorney who represented them from the time of commencement of this action acted without authority when he assented to the stipulation made on the record. Moreover, since the stipulation was made between the parties’ counsel in open court, it was binding upon the defendants.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).