Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Stipulations of settlement, especially those made in open court, are favored by the courts and will not be lightly cast aside ( see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Matter of Davis, 292 AD2d 452). Thus, "[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation" ( Hallock v. State of New York, supra at 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143). Here, the open-court stipulation entered into by the parties was clear and unambiguous ( see Matter of Gruntz, 168 AD2d 558; Matter of Hecht, 24 AD2d 1001). Moreover, the Surrogate's Court conducted a proper allocution of the petitioner, and determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation ( see Matter of DePaul, 249 AD2d 390). The petitioner did not come forward with evidence that the stipulation was the result of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident sufficient to invalidate a contract. Under these circumstances, the Surrogate's Court properly concluded that there was no basis for setting aside the stipulation ( see Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Kaplan, 141 AD2d 545). [ See 5 Misc 3d 1017(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51414(U) (2004).]