A stipulation of settlement that is merely an agreement to agree to future terms is not definite and complete and will not be enforced by specific performance.
In a probate proceeding, two brothers acting as administrators attempted to settle objections to an intermediate accounting through a stipulation read into the record. One brother later withdrew his agreement to purchase the other's interest in real property, prompting a motion for specific performance. The court must determine whether the stipulation constituted a definite and complete agreement enforceable by specific performance. The court applies the rule that stipulations of settlement are favored but will not be enforced if they are merely an agreement to agree to future terms. Because the record shows the parties failed to agree on the withdrawal of all objections and the presiding judge expressed uncertainty about the settlement, the court finds the stipulation was not definite and complete. The court reverses the Appellate Division and reinstates the Surrogate's Court order denying specific performance.
35 N.Y.2d at 321 Determining if a settlement constitutes a final agreement26 citing casesintemal citations and quotations omitted
- Tear Drops of Elegance, Inc v. 2232-2240 ACP Owner, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 32299(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedAs “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984], citing Galasso v Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]), setting aside of such a stipulation would be improper “in…
- Nogueira v. Ery Retail Podium LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 30526(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished(intemal citations and quotations omitted)
- Rora LLC v. 404 East 79th Street Lender LLC, 630 B.R. 876 (E.D.N.Y. 2021).publishedMajority Peoples’ Fund for the 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 953 F. Supp. 557, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Settlement agreements are strongly favored in New York and may not be lightly cast aside.” (first citing Rivera v. State, 496 N.Y.S.2d 230,…
- GHR Co. v. Sannon, No. 2018 NYSlipOp 50207(U) (N.Y. App. Term. Feb. 9, 2018).published It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are independent contracts, are favored by the courts, and will not be undone absent proof that the settlement was obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake, accident or other ground sufficient…
- Matter of Shapiro v. Hayes, 133 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2015).published“At best, [the in-court settlement] was an agreement to agree to the amplified terms of a future writing” (Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
- Diarassouba v. Urban, 71 A.D.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published Although stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside (see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]), the threshold issue here is whether there was…
- Silas v. City of New York, 536 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).publishedSee, e.g., Rivera v. State, 115 A.D.2d 431, 432 , 496 N.Y.S.2d 230 (1st Dep’t 1985); Galasso v. Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319 , 361 N.Y.S.2d 871 , 320 N.E.2d 618, 618-19 (1974).
- In re Alexander L., 34 A.D.3d 1359 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2006).publishedAlthough we of course acknowledge that the September 24, 2004 stipulation between petitioner and respondents to the disposition should not lightly be disregarded (see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]), we note that petitioner une…
- 259 Broadway Realty Corp. v. Inc. Vill. of Amityville, 29 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).publishedWhile a stipulation of settlement made in open court should be strictly enforced and not lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp…
- Bonnette v. Long Island Coll. Hosp., 819 N.E.2d 206 (N.Y. 2004).published(refusing to enforce a settlement that, although proposed in open court, did not reflect a complete agreement as to all material terms)
Show 13 more citing cases
- McCartha v. Williams, 3 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004).publishedAs “ ‘[stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside’ ” (Doppelt v Doppelt, 215 AD2d 715, 715 [1995], quoting Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]), when dealing with matters of custody, it must be s…
- Poplar Realty, LLC v. Po, 3 Misc. 3d 22 (N.Y. App. Term. 2003).publishedWritten settlement stipulations are favored by the courts “and will not be set aside in the absence of fraud or overreaching” (Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]), “mistake ... or duress” (Natole v Natole, 256 AD2d 558, 559 [1998])…
- Lukaszuk v. Lukaszuk, 304 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2003).publishedIt is well-settled that open-court stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, and will not be lightly set aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; Jablonski v Jabl…
- Willgerodt ex rel. Majority Peoples' Fund for the 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 953 F. Supp. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published Rivera v. State, 115 A.D.2d 431, 432 , 496 N.Y.S.2d 230, 231 (1st Dep’t 1985); Galasso v. Galasso (In re Galasso), 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321 , 361 N.Y.S.2d 871, 872 , 320 N.E.2d 618, 618-19 (1974).
- Lewis v. Lewis, 183 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1992).publishedIt is well established that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and are not lightly cast aside absent cause sufficient to invalidate a contract (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 ; Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d…
- Chem. Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 143 Misc. 2d 823 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989).publishedSecond, stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and will not be cast aside lightly (Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]).
- McClorey v. McClorey, 153 A.D.3d 1252 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published“Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]).
- All. Hous. II Assocs. v. George, 49 Misc. 3d 883 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2015).publishedBy order dated June 18, 2015, this court granted the GAL’s application and relieved her from her duties, without prejudice to renew her appointment, “based on the fact that [tenant] is currently being represented [by counsel], that the Gua…
- George W. & Dacie Clements Agric. Rsch. Inst., Inc. v. Green, 130 A.D.3d 1422 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published Because these early 2012 writings evidence nothing more than “an agreement to agree to the amplified terms of a future writing” (M atter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 11 [1972]; accord Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]; see e…
- Rogers v. Malik, 126 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedStipulations of settlement between parties are binding contracts enforceable by the court and, as such, they are favored and “not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319…
- Ecogen Wind LLC v. Town of Prattsburgh Town Bd., 112 A.D.3d 1282 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2013).published “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 321 [1974]).
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Wielgus, 131 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published“Stipulations of settlement between parties are binding contracts . . . and, as such, they are favored and ‘not lightly cast aside’ ” (Rogers v Malik, 126 AD3d 874, 874 [2015]; quoting Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984];…
- Weinstock v. Handler, 254 A.D.2d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1998).published(agreement to agree)
35 N.Y.2d at 320 Favor of settlement stipulations in court proceedings1 citing case
- Palmieri v. Town of Babylon, 56 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedWhile “[stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; see Matter of Galasso, 35 NY2d 319, 320 [1974]), a stipulation of settlement may be set aside o…
Other citing cases
- Ecogen Wind, LLC v. Town of Prattsburgh Town Bd., No. CA 12-02307 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Dec. 27, 2013).published
- Jafri v. Jafri, 228 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1996).published
- Royal York Realty, Inc. v. Ancona, 280 A.D.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2001).published
Millie Galasso died intestate on January 31, 1966. Letters of administration were issued on February 24, 1966 to two sons, Peter Galasso and Leonard Galasso. They, together with two other children of the decedent, were distributees of the estate. On October 2, 1970, Leonard Galasso filed an inter[*321]mediate accounting, to which Peter Gralasso filed objections. Thereafter, on May 9, 1972, the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, denied specific performance of a stipulation off settlement of all objections purportedly entered into on February 15, 1972.
The parties to this proceeding, after several'hearings, entered into a purported stipulation which was read into the record. By the terms of the stipulation, inter alia, Leonard Gralasso agreed to purchase for $15,000 the one-fourth interest in certain real property owned by his brother Peter. Less than a month later, Leonard Gralasso notified the objectant’s attorneys that circumstances had arisen which made it necessary for him to withdraw his offer to purchase his interest in the real property. Peter Gralasso then moved for an order directing Leonard to perform all the terms of the alleged stipulation of settlement made in open court and for specific performance of said settlement.
While it is true, as the Appellate Division noted, that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and will not be set aside in the absence of fraud or overreaching (cf. Matter of Hecht, 24 A D 2d 1001), we are unable to agree with the Appellate Division that the stipulation, as it appears from the record, was “ definite and complete ” (Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N Y 2d 1, 10). What is clear from the record is that on February 11 and 15, 1972, the parties made an effort to reach such a stipulation. Nevertheless, on both days the parties were unable to agree to the withdrawal of all objections, and it cannot be said that a finally agreed upon stipulation was reached. We find very persuasive in this regard the fact that the Surrogate who participated in the purported settlement remarked towards the end of the February 15 hearing that “ I am still not sure it’s settled.” Counsel for the accountant replied with similar uncertainty, “ I hope this matter will be settled.” As we noted under analogous circumstances in Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp. (supra, p. 11), “ [a]t best, it was an agreement to agree to the amplified terms of a future writing ”.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the order of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, reinstated.
[*322] Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gtabrielli, Jones, Waohtler and Rabin concur; Judge Stevens taking no part.
Order reversed, without costs against the estate or any party, and order of Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, reinstated.