Court Opinion

ID: 9945518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:09:51.458402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.305029
License: Public Domain

Shouela v Shouela
               2024 NY Slip Op 30572(U)
                   February 23, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 501280/2021
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:59 AM                                                            INDEX NO. 501280/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
          ·- - -·- -·--- - - - -· ·--·- - - - -·- -·- - - --- - ---.-- - - . . ·- - -x.
          ELI SHOUELAi
                                                                 Plaintiff,                  Decision and order

                              - against ., ;.                                             Index No. 50l28O/202 1

           ISAAC SHOUELA and 1515 CHURCH AVENUE
           REALTY LLC,
                                         Defendant s,                                             Febrtiary 23~ 2024
           ~-. -.--·-. - . -·- .-.--. --- . ----·.        .----.-.-- . --. ·... --x
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN                                                             Motion Seq. #4

                      The plaintiff has moved seeking to                                  vacate a      stipulatio n

           entered between the parties on January 9,                                      2023.     The defendant s

           oppose       the    motion.            Papers       were      slibmi tted by            the patties   and

           arguments held.              After reviewing all the arguments this court now

           makes the following determina tion.

                       As recorded in a prior order, the plaintiff Eli and Isaac

           are brothers.            While Eli was involved in a divorce proceedin g, his

           broth~r Isaac recommend ed that Eli transfer propertie s to him to

           avoid satisfying any divorce judgement and that when such divorce

           proceeding terminate d he would transfer the propertie s back to Eli.

           Eli accepted that advice                       and in October and November                      2015 Eli

           transferre d propertie s locateci at 1797 East 22 Street, 1821 East 22

           Street, 1946 East 21 Street and 1721 East 8 Street all located in

           Kings County.             After the conclusion of the divorce proceedin gs Eli

           asked Isaac to               return       the propertie s             a·nd      Is_aac refused.       This

           lawsuit followed.

                    On January           9, 2023 the parties ente.ted intQ a stipulatio n

                                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:59 AM                                                 INDEX NO. 501280/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           Cancelin g the             noti.ce   of pendenc y filed           concerni ng     151,5       Church

           Avenue      Realty         LLC   anci    all    ciaims     regardin g ·the   Chut'ch Avenue

           Premises ,       w i t.h    pre j ud;i.ce.      The plainti ff :now moves. se:eking to
                                                '
           vacate that stipula tion on the grounds. the stipulat ion should have

           only included language the Claims were dismisse d withollt prejudic e.

           The plainti ff argues he .specifi cally instruct ed his counsel to only

           ag:t;.ee to dismi.ss the claims without prejqdic ~.                    The plainti. ff seeks

           to. vacate that              stipulat iqn and i;ime~d the complain t: se.eking to

           as,sert cau.se$ of ac,tion. for a. cons.tru ctive trust and other claims

           re:garq_Jp g th,$.t property ...             The defehda. nt opposes the. motion arguing

           •the.re is no basis upon which to vacat~ the s:tipulat: ~on·.

                                                    Conclus ions o·f Law

                  It is general ly true that abs·ent fraud, col,lusio n or rnis·take

           a stipqla. tion that ·is fa:i.t· ·on its face Will 1:Je enforced {Bergho ff

           argumen t that a mistake wa$ made as grounds irt which to v~c~te the

            stipulat ion trtust be a :rinitual one proved by cle9-r and convinc ing

           evidence (In Re Janet L., .287 AD2d 86:5,                        731 NYS2d 299      [3·.i:d   Dept. r

            2001]) · and the mistake mµ.st be of a nature which the·n does not

            reflect the rrieeting of the minds between the part;.ies (Vermily ea v.

            Ve'ttnily ea,     224 .AD2d 759,            636'. NYS2d .95.3   [3rd Dept~·, T996]) .

            The-refo re, t.he assertio n that the stipulat ion was erroneou s wc,µld

            steneral1 y      be       an    ins,uffic ient      bas.is   upon   which   to     vacate       t.he

                                                                2

                                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:59 AM                                                       INDEX NO. 501280/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           stipulation {~-,. Natol.e v. N-atole;, 256 AD2d 5-S-8_, 682 NYS2d 864 [2-d

           Dept .. ,   19Q.8] i .         This       ts. espe.ci 9 11Y true where there was             only a

           unilateral rnistake_ wi thb_ut any evidence b.f fraud, ·ct1.1ress or Other

           inequit-ahle             coli.duct    that 'would -demand that -the                  stipulation. be

           vacated (Village: o.f Waterford v. Camproni, 2'00 AD2ci. 930, 607 NY.S2d

           4 3 3 [°3 rd Dept. , l 9,9-4] l -~-

                   The pl.ainti:!:f asserts that he, em,;1.iled his. prior counsel and

           indicated the. stipLilatiqr). sh_ol.ild be executed 'without prejudice' to

           secure ·claims th_at may arise                      in the      future      (-see,   email from Eli

           _Shouela_,    dated January 9, 2-023                  [_NYSCEF· D.oc.        No. 71]).      rurttier,

           counsel for the plaintiff electronical ly signed the stipulation the

           following day (see, St:ipJJ.1cJ.tion o·f i?art;i...al D:;L.scontipuan ce [J\JYS.CEF

           Doc, No .. 61])__.           Even if Eli's counsel saw the email. from Eli prior

           to completing the stipulation and ignored that request, at its core

           that i-S: merely a u•nilat.eral mistake which is nqt. gro.unds t_o vacate

           the sti:pulation.                   .The Ci3.se of Structured Asset Sales Group LLC v.

           Freeman,          45_·     .AD"Jd     327,    844    NYS2d          6-99   [Pt    Dept.,   2007]   is

           ·instructive..            In that ca·/:'ie th_e plaintiff entered into :a sti.p.ulat.ipn

           to dis.continue              an action         'with prejudice' .                The plaintiff then

           s-ought      to    v~cate           tbe    stip-µlation      :o.n    the gro;unds     they -did not

           re~l..ize the stipulation was 'with prejudice'..                             The. court denied the

           request noting the. plaintiff possessed the                                  stipulation: for two

           me>nths before-- signing it.                     In this, case, ·the plaintiff c!-nd his-

           counsel $urely maintained the stipulation prior to executing it ahd

                                                                 3

                                                               3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:59 AM                                              INDEX NO. 501280/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           any mistake in its drafting is not grounds to vacate it (see, Tata

           v. City of New York and 129 West 29 th Associate s, 2010 WL 4093943

           [Supreme Court New York County 2010]).                     In a case where all the

           parties and the court clearly contempla ted the claims were being

           dismissed      without    prejudice    and        somehow     the     language      of the

           stipulatio n included the words             'with prejudice '         then a different

           result may be appropria te (see, Karniol v. Good Move Trucking Inc.,

           281 AD2d 287,       722    NYS2d 143    [Pt       Dept.,     2001}).         However,   the

           natural understan ding of the           stipulatio n,         that the claims were

           being dismissed with prejudice to provide finality to the matters,

           is readily apparent          ('Singleton Managemen t Inc..             v.    Compere,   243

           AD2d 213,     673 NYS2d 381 [Pt Dept.,            1998]).     Therefore , there is no

           basis in which to vacate the stipulatio n.

                Moreover, a party seeking to vacate a stipulatio n must do so

           with reasonable promptnes s (see, Hallock v. State Of New York,                           64

           NY2d 224, 485 NYS2d 510 [1984]) .                Iri this case the stipulatio n was

           executed      in   January     and    the    motion         seeking    to      vacate    the

           stipulatio n was filed in Ju,ly, six months later.                    There has been no

           explanatio n for the lohg' delay in seeking its vacatur.

                   Therefore ,      based on the toregoihg ,            the mot~on~ seeking to

           vac:ate the stipulatio n arid to amend the complaint are denied.

                       So ordered.
                                        ENTER:

            DATED: February 23, 2023
                   Brooklyn N,Y.                   Hon. Leon Ruchel
                                                   JSC
                                                                           /"
                                                        4

                                                   4 of 4
[* 4]