Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, especially where, as here, the terms are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by competent counsel (see, Schieck v Schieck, 138 A.D.2d 691; Ianielli v North Riv. Ins. Co., 119 A.D.2d 317, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 606). Absent a showing that the stipulation was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake or duress, such a stipulation will not be disturbed by the court (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149-150; Sontag v Sontag, 114 A.D.2d 892, lv dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 554; Alexander v Alexander, 112 A.D.2d 121). Based upon our review of the record, we are convinced that the appellant's allegations constitute an insufficient basis upon which to vacate the stipulation of settlement in this action. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.