Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, petitioners' application to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance signed by counsel in June 1993. Petitioners became aware of the grounds upon which their application for vacatur of the stipulation is premised in January 1996, but, unaccountably, did not move to vacate the stipulation until more than two years later ( see, Matter of Guttenplan, 222 A.D.2d 255, 257, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 812). In any case, an action by petitioner against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, since, it is clear, petitioners' submissions upon this application notwithstanding, that petitioner Hardie Bouloy was injured by a co-worker during the course of their employment and while the co-worker was operating a vehicle owned by respondent Peters ( see, Naso v. Lafata, 4 N.Y.2d 585, 589; Albarran v. City of New York, 56 A.D.2d 822).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.