Plaintiff starts a legal malpractice law suit, and then settles it for $ 40,000.  Later, he turns around and seeks to set aside a stipulation of discontinuance, general release, and hold-harmless agreement in the case.  In Rosin v Weinberg 2013 NY Slip Op 03981  Decided on June 5, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department  plaintiff is unable to set aside the settlement.
 

"Here, the plaintiff sought to set aside a stipulation of discontinuance, general release, [*2]and hold-harmless agreement (hereinafter the settlement documents) on the grounds of unilateral mistake (see Yorker v Daniel Yorker, Ltd., 12 AD3d 506, 506; Long v Fitzgerald, 240 AD2d 971, 974; Matter of Goldman v Goldman, 201 AD2d 860, 861; William E. McClain Realty v Rivers, 144 AD2d 216, 218) and unconscionability (see Gillman v Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 NY2d 1, 10-12). In his complaint, the plaintiff essentially alleged that he was not aware that the $40,000 which the defendant gave him in exchange for, inter alia, discontinuing the underlying legal malpractice action consisted of escrow funds that already belonged to the plaintiff. The evidentiary material submitted by the defendant in support of his motion demonstrated that the plaintiff’s alleged unawareness of the source of the settlement funds was not a fact at all, and that there was no significant dispute regarding that allegation. Specifically, the defendant’s submissions conclusively demonstrated that the terms of the settlement documents were clear and unambiguous, that the settlement documents were reviewed by the plaintiff and his counsel and were executed by the plaintiff in his counsel’s office, and that the source of the $40,000 was readily apparent from the face of the settlement documents. "