Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the application is denied.
Stipulations of settlement meet with judicial favor, particularly where, as here, the terms thereof are read into the record in open court and the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel (see, Ianielli v. North Riv. Ins. Co., 119 A.D.2d 317, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 606). Absent a showing of fraud, mistake, duress or overreaching such stipulations will not be disturbed by the court (Alexander v Alexander, 112 A.D.2d 121). At bar the defendant contends that the terms of the stipulation regarding the parties' pension rights were not sufficiently definite and that there was no meeting of the minds by the parties. While the stipulation as initially read into the record could possibly be interpreted two ways, an examination of the record as a whole clearly establishes that the parties intended that their children be named beneficiaries of any pension moneys due on the death of either party (see, Kraker v. Roll, 100 A.D.2d 424, 436). Finally, regardless of whether or not the stipulation as it applies to the plaintiff, a New York City Transit Police Detective, will serve to defeat the claim of a later-designated beneficiary (see, Caravaggio v Retirement Bd. of Teachers' Retirement Sys., 36 N.Y.2d 348; but see, McDermott v. McDermott, 119 A.D.2d 370, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 1028), it constitutes a contractual promise enforceable against the plaintiff's estate (see, Caravaggio v. Retirement Bd. of Teachers' Retirement Sys., supra).
We have considered the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.