Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"Open-court stipulations are judicially favored, and will not be set aside absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, duress, or unconscionability" ( Tarone v Tarone, 25 AD3d 779, 780; see Lukaszuk v Lukaszuk, 304 AD2d 625; Jablonski v Jablonski, 275 AD2d 692, 693). Where a party unequivocally, knowingly, and voluntarily agrees to be bound by a stipulation placed on the record in open court, the agreement will not be set aside based on the party's refusal to execute a written stipulation containing the same terms ( see Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d 446; Storette v Storette, 11 AD3d 365). Here, the parties validly entered into a comprehensive open-court stipulation ( see CPLR 2104; Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d at 446; Borghoff v Borghoff, 8 AD3d 519) by which the plaintiff unequivocally, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to be bound ( see Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d at 446). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement ( id.).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Gallagher v Gallagher, 51 AD3d 718, 719).