Ordered that the appeal from the order entered August 29, 2007 is dismissed as academic as that order was vacated by an order dated September 26, 2008; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered August 21, 2007, as amended, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
While a stipulation of settlement may be set aside where there is evidence of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress ( see Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 257 AD2d 621), the defendant failed to tender evidence in admissible form sufficient to warrant a hearing on her motion to vacate the parties' stipulation ( see O'Shell v O'Shell, 54 AD3d 914, 915; Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 610; Chernow v Chernow, 51 AD3d 705, 706). The defendant's contention that the appointment of a receiver to sell certain real property should be set aside because of a purported failure to comply with the court rules ( see 22 NYCRR part 36) was not raised before the Supreme Court and, therefore, is not properly before this Court ( see Sandoval v Juodzevich, 293 AD2d 595, 595-596; Mourounas v Shahin, 291 AD2d 537; Weber v Jacobs, 289 AD2d 226).