Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hillcrest Realty Co. v. Gottlieb
Citations: 234 A.D.2d 270; 651 N.Y.S.2d 55; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 1, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
William Gottlieb and William Gottlieb Real Estate Co. appeal an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, denying their motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement and a stipulation of discontinuance related to an action for unpaid rent under a lease. The order, made on May 25, 1995, is affirmed with costs. The case stems from a previous appeal between the parties, which was perfected in August 1993. After entering settlement negotiations, a tentative agreement was reached by June 1994. The appeal was unexpectedly scheduled for argument on October 7, 1994, and a decision favorable to Gottlieb was issued on October 24, 1994, without the parties' knowledge. In December 1994, the parties formally executed a stipulation of settlement, in which Gottlieb agreed to pay the plaintiff approximately $100,000 more than what was dictated by the court's decision. After discovering the court's decision, Gottlieb sought to vacate the settlement, claiming it was entered into under a mistake of fact. The Supreme Court denied Gottlieb’s motion, reaffirming that stipulations of settlement are favored and not easily set aside. A party can only be relieved from such agreements if a sufficient cause, such as a mistake, is demonstrated. The court noted that Gottlieb had failed to inquire about the appeal's status for nearly three months prior to the settlement, and it was within his means to confirm the appeal's outcome. The court concluded that the assumption of no decision being rendered did not constitute a valid mistake of fact to void the settlement. Ultimately, the court highlighted that a party bears the risk of being mistaken regarding the outcome of an appeal at the time of settlement and that equity does not relieve a party from contractual obligations solely based on hindsight.