LUKASZUK v. LUKASZUK

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well-settled that open-court stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, and will not be lightly set aside (see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321; Jablonski v. Jablonski, 275 A.D.2d 692, 693; Natole v. Natole, 256 A.D.2d 558). Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation (see Hallock v. State of New York, supra; Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149-150; Jablonski v. Jablonski, supra at 693). The defendant failed to establish that at the time of the stipulation of settlement he was suffering from a mental illness or defect which rendered him incapable of comprehending the nature of the transaction or making a rational judgment concerning the transaction, or that by reason of mental illness he was unable to control his conduct (see Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Bd. of City of N.Y., 25 N.Y.2d 196, 202-205; Matter of Lee, 294 A.D.2d 366; Gala v. Magarinos, 245 A.D.2d 336; Matter of Waldron, 240 A.D.2d 507; Smith v. Comas, 173 A.D.2d 535). Furthermore, the defendant's conclusory allegations of duress and coercion are belied by the transcript of the stipulation of settlement (see M.H. Kane Constr. v. Byrd, 284 A.D.2d 509; Lefkowitz v. Lefkowitz, 276 A.D.2d 598; Sarai v. Sarai, 267 A.D.2d 295; Cavalli v. Cavalli, 226 A.D.2d 666). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.