On February 23, 2024, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Shouela v. Shouela, 2024 NY Slip Op. 30572(U), refusing a delayed request to vacate a stipulation, explaining:
It is generally true that absent fraud, collusion or mistake a stipulation that is fair on its face will be enforced. Any argument that a mistake was made as grounds in which to vacate the stipulation must be a mutual one proved by clear and convincing evidence and the mistake must be of a nature which then does not reflect the meeting of the minds between the parties. Therefore, the assertion that the stipulation was erroneous would generally be an insufficient basis upon which to vacate the stipulation. This is especially true where there was only a unilateral mistake without any evidence of fraud, duress or other inequitable conduct that would demand that the stipulation be vacated.
The plaintiff asserts that he emailed his prior counsel and indicated the stipulation should be executed without prejudice to secure claims that may arise in the future. Further, counsel for the plaintiff electronically signed the stipulation the following day. Even if Eli’s counsel saw the email from Eli prior to completing the stipulation and ignored that request, at its core that is merely a unilateral mistake which is not grounds to vacate the stipulation. The case of Structured Asset Sales Group LLC v. Freeman, 45 AD3d 327, 844 NYS2d 699 [l” Dept., 2007] is instructive. In that case the plaintiff entered into a stipulation to discontinue an action with prejudice. The plaintiff then sought to vacate the stipulation on the grounds they did not realize the stipulation was with prejudice. The court denied the request noting the plaintiff possessed the stipulation for two months before signing it. In this case, the plaintiff and his counsel surely maintained the stipulation prior to executing it and any mistake in its drafting is not grounds to vacate it. In a case where all the parties and the court clearly contemplated the claims were being dismissed without prejudice and somehow the language of the stipulation included the words with prejudice then a different result may be appropriate. However, the natural understanding of the stipulation, that the claims were being dismissed with prejudice to provide finality to the matters, is readily apparent. Therefore, there is no basis in which to vacate the stipulation.
Moreover, a party seeking to vacate a stipulation must do so with reasonable promptness. In this case the stipulation was executed in January and the motion seeking to vacate the stipulation was filed in July, six months later. There has been no explanation for the long delay in seeking its vacatur.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the motions seeking to vacate the stipulation and to amend the complaint are denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).