Summary
finding no cause of action for lost profits, only standing to require contract be awarded to lowest responsible bidder
Summary of this case from Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. v. Ruiz Sch. BusOpinion
March 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fierro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"[S]tipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where * * * the terms are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by competent counsel" (Bossom v Bossom, 141 A.D.2d 794, 795). Thus, absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress the stipulation will not be disturbed by the court (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Zwirn v Zwirn, 153 A.D.2d 854; Bossom v Bossom, supra). Additionally, where the agreement is fair on its face, such that there is no inference of overreaching, vacatur is not warranted even if one party failed to disclose financial information, unless the undisclosed information was of such consequence that had it been disclosed, the other party would not have executed the agreement (see, Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 A.D.2d 834).
In the present case, the record supports the trial court's finding that the plaintiff husband was represented by counsel when he voluntarily and knowingly entered into the stipulation of settlement, notwithstanding his suspicions that his wife was then employed, and that the maintenance provisions of the stipulation were fair and reasonable. His motion to vacate the stipulation was therefore properly denied. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.