Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the husband's contention, the oral stipulation of settlement, read into the record on June 7, 2005, was intended by both parties to be a full, final, and binding settlement. "Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside" ( Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Where an oral stipulation is read into the record and found by the court to be fair and reasonable, it will not be disturbed absent a showing of one of the recognized grounds for vacatur, e.g., fraud, duress, mistake, or overreaching ( see Harrington v Harrington, 103 AD2d 356, 359; accord Zafran v Zafran, 28 AD3d 752; Leahy v Leahy, 9 AD3d 351; Lazich v Lazich, 233 AD2d 425). Here, the parties, with both counsel present, knowingly entered into a comprehensive open-court agreement, which they clearly intended would constitute a final and binding settlement, and the husband has failed to establish any reason why this agreement should be set aside. Accordingly, as the stipulation provided, among other things, that the husband would pay the sum of $150,000 in attorneys' fees to the wife, the Supreme Court properly granted the wife's motion for enforcement of that provision. Similarly, the Supreme Court properly directed the husband to provide certain financial documents to the wife.
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.