The Third Department gives a nice analysis of the law of "account stated" in its decision, Antokol & Coffin v Myers ;2011 NY Slip Op 06051 ;Appellate Division, Third Department .
 

""’An account stated is an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and balance due’" (J.B.H., Inc. v Godinez, 34 AD3d 873, 874 [2006], quoting Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr., 195 AD2d 868, 869 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 660 [1993]). An attorney can recover fees on an account stated "with proof that a bill . . . was issued to a client and held by the client without objection for an unreasonable period of time" (O’Connell & Aronowitz v Gullo, 229 AD2d 637, 638 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 803 [1996]).

At trial, plaintiff introduced evidence of a retainer agreement between Antokol and defendant as well as unpaid invoices for legal fees dated between September 1995 and December 1996. Antokol testified that these invoices were ordinarily sent to defendant on a monthly basis and that defendant did not object to the bills until plaintiff commenced this action. Defendant testified that she did not remember receiving monthly bills but, in her prior deposition testimony, acknowledged that she thought she had received a bill most months. Although defendant claimed to have had "constant conversations about the bills" with Antokol, and Antokol admitted that he made efforts to get her to pay, including offering a 10% discount in February 1996, he testified that defendant never offered a reason for her refusal to pay the bills. Indeed, with the exception of one specific objection to work completed by one of Antokol’s colleagues, which defendant ultimately agreed to pay, defendant did not claim to have made objections to any specific bill, despite the language at the end of each bill stating, "The above information will be deemed correct unless objection is made within 30 days." Further, defendant admittedly made no written objections to the bills. Under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that defendant’s general claims of verbal refusals to pay did not constitute a specific objection sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s cause of action for an account stated (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]; J.B.H., Inc. v Godinez, 34 AD3d at 875-876; PPG Indus. v A.G.P. Sys., 235 AD2d 979, 980 [1997]; see also Zanani v Schvimmer, 50 AD3d 445, 446 [2008]). "

"Turning to the adequacy of the services billed for, we agree with Supreme Court that the record demonstrates that plaintiff provided competent representation in a difficult matrimonial matter. Antokol’s failure to establish grounds for divorce in defendant’s favor, albeit clearly a point of frustration for defendant, was irrelevant, as fault did not affect the equitable distribution of marital assets (see Howard S. v Lillian S., 14 NY3d 431, 435-436 [2010]). Defendant’s assertions that Antokol should have presented expert testimony to increase her share of the marital estate and that he was not prepared for trial are counterbalanced by record evidence that Antokol’s decisions were part of his trial strategy and his claims that defendant’s refusal to follow his advice at times interfered with his ability to achieve better results for her. In sum, the record evidence fully supports Supreme Court’s finding that the alleged inadequacies of Antokol’s representation are insufficient to undermine plaintiff’s right to be paid for its services (see Matter of Wapner, Koplovitz & Futerfas v Solomon, 7 AD3d at 916). "
 

Plaintiff is injured while at work as a teacher in NYC and goes to an attorney.  The attorney advises her to bring a Workers’ Compensation Claim, and does so for her.  More than 90 days passes, and lo and behold, it turns out that Teachers in NYC are not covered by WC, and are (must) bring a personal injury claim.  It’s too late for plaintiff.  Is this legal malpractice? 

Supreme Court did not think so.  The Appellate Division, however, did.  Gaskin v Harris   2012 NY Slip Op 06123  Decided on September 12, 2012  Appellate Division, Second Department . 
 

"However, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney’s breach of this duty caused the plaintiff to suffer actual and ascertainable damages (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 350; Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301-302; Gershkovich v Miller, Rosado & Algios, LLP, 96 AD3d 716, 717). When determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible [*2]inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87; Marom v Anselmo, 90 AD3d 622, 623), and "may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 88; see Berman v Christ Apostolic Church Intl. Miracle Ctr., Inc., 87 AD3d 1094, 1096-1097; Kopelowitz & Co., Inc. v Mann, 83 AD3d 793, 797). Further, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d at 326; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 88; Robertson v Wells, 95 AD3d 862, 863; Magnus v Sklover, 95 AD3d 837, 837).

Applying these principles here, the complaint, as amplified by the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff, adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently advised her to seek Workers’ Compensation benefits for injuries sustained in the course of her employment as a substitute teacher, when he should have known, as an attorney specializing in this area, that New York City teachers and substitute teachers are not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law. She further claims that the defendant advised her to pursue a baseless Workers’ Compensation claim instead of litigation, failed to advise her of the deadline for filing a notice of claim, and counseled her against accepting a mediator’s recommended settlement that would have afforded her some compensation for her injuries. Although the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant establishes that he promptly filed a Workers’ Compensation claim on the plaintiff’s behalf, and that the claim was denied on the ground that New York City teachers, including substitute teachers, are not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law, this evidence does not conclusively establish a defense to the plaintiff’s asserted malpractice claims. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice (see Magnus v Sklover, 95 AD3d at 837; Ofman v Katz, 89 AD3d 909, 910; Thompsen v Baier, 84 AD3d 1062, 1063). "

Legal malpractice and arbitration, even arbitrations that are on the edge of the legal malpractice case have an uneasy relationship.  Courts are more than willing to dismiss legal malpractice cases because of an earlier arbitration.  It need not have been on the ultimate merits of whether the attorney departed from good and accepted practice.  It may have been over whether the attorney should be awarded any fees, or over whether the attorney should have been permitted to withdraw from the case, and today, the First Department conjured another situation inFeinberg v Boros
2012 NY Slip Op 06114   Decided on September 11, 2012   Appellate Division, First Department .  Now, the question is whether an arbitration between plaintiff and his former business partner limits plaintiff’s right to sue his attorneys for claimed departures after the arbitration. 
 

"At issue on this appeal is whether the defendant members of a law firm committed legal [*2]malpractice by not advising the plaintiff, Herbert Feinberg, that an agreement with his former business partner to limit the collateral estoppel effect of an arbitration award would have been enforceable in Feinberg’s lawsuit against a third party. As set forth in greater detail below, precedent, sparse as it is on this issue, nevertheless mandates that such limiting agreements are not carved-out exceptions to normal collateral estoppel principles. We therefore find that where, as here, an issue has been fully and vigorously litigated, no limiting agreement as to an arbitration award may bar the assertion of a collateral estoppel defense by a third party as to that issue. "

"It is well established that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a litigant from disputing an issue in another proceeding when that issue was decided against the litigant in a proceeding in which he had a "full and fair opportunity" to contest the matter. Schwartz v. Public Adm’r of County of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 71, 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 959, 246 N.E.2d 725, 728 (1969). Collateral estoppel preserves party and judicial resources by preventing relitigation of matters that have already been resolved. Further, it [*6]prevents inconsistent results. 24 N.Y.2d at 74, 298 N.Y.S.2d at 962. Collateral estoppel can be asserted in a new case by a nonparty to the original proceeding. B.R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N.Y.2d 141, 147, 278 N.Y.S.2d 596, 601, 225 N.E.2d 195, 198 (1967). Moreover, collateral estoppel principles "apply as well to awards in arbitration as they do to adjudications in judicial proceedings." Matter of American Ins. Co. [Messinger-Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.], 43 N.Y.2d 184, 189-190, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36, 39, 371 N.E.2d 798, 801 (1977), citing Rembrandt Indus., v. Hodges Intl., 38 N.Y.2d 502, 381 N.Y.S.2d 451, 344 N.E.2d 383 (1976).

Confusion has arisen in this case because the Messinger Court also held, seemingly inconsistently, that "[i]n circumstances involving arbitration, … the parties themselves can formulate their own contractual restrictions on carry-over estoppel effect." Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d at 194, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 42. On closer analysis, however, it is clear that the confusion is not warranted.

The ability of parties to formulate their own contractual restrictions as to the estoppel effect of arbitration awards is not, in reality, a carved-out exception to normal collateral estoppel principles. The idea of entering into a contractual limitation was established by the Messinger Court in the context of a dispute arising from an arbitration between insurance carriers. Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d at 187, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 37. The Court recognized that arbitration hearings may be "summary, pro-forma proceeding[s]" and that the opportunity "for summary dispositions should not be inhibited by automatically according a binding estoppel effect to the first determination." Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d at 191, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 42. Hence, the Court concluded that in arbitration "the parties themselves can formulate their own contractual restrictions on carry-over estoppel effect." 43 N.Y.2d at 193, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 42. However, the Court cautioned that "[t]hey cannot, of course, impose similar limitations which would impair or diminish the rights of third persons." Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d at 194, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 42. This latter caution by the Court has been characterized as dicta particularly in view of two appellate division determinations that appeared to uphold agreements that imposed such a limitation on third parties. See Kerins v. Prudential Prop. & Cas., 185 A.D.2d 403, 585 N.Y.S.2d 637, 638(3rd Dept. 1992); also Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Smith, 277 A.D.2d 390, 717 N.Y.S.2d 210 (2d Dept. 2000). "

The answer to today’s question is "quite a ways." Without further comment, here is Breytman v Schechter ; 2011 NY Slip Op 51375(U) ;  Supreme Court, Kings County   Schack, J.
" In my prior February 8, 2011 decision and order, I granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the instant action with prejudice. However, despite the dismissal with prejudice, plaintiff BREYTMAN now moves for various relief, including what the Court deems a motion to reargue. The Court, for reasons that will be explained, finds the instant motion "frivolous." It is completely without merit in law and undertaken primarily to harass and maliciously injure defendants SCHECHTER and the Court. After giving plaintiff BREYTMAN a reasonable opportunity to be heard and reviewing all papers submitted and the oral argument transcript, the instant motion is denied. Costs and sanctions are imposed upon plaintiff BREYTMAN for frivolous conduct."
 

"The following are some examples of plaintiff BREYTMAN’s outrageous and offensive statements. Plaintiff begins his affidavit in support of the motion by stating, in ¶ 1, "I Alexander Breytman the last of the Mohicans have chutzpah to make this affidavit in support and against dishonorable Arthur M. Schack Universe and Donald Schechter Galaxy and Karl Marxist and Fredrick Engels’ fuzzy Machiavellian order selling snake oil, legally deficient full of holes like Swiss cheese where I can fly space shuttle through [sic]." Further, at ¶ 5, plaintiff informs the Court "Your order is unconstitutional and I do not have to follow, lead or get out of the way, you just overruled by Pro se, how you like them apples [sic]." Then, at ¶ 11, he states, "I am immune from your dishonorable illegal order that is unconstitutional and therefore is null and void and is in effect under lock and key [sic]." Plaintiff, in ¶ 18, calls the Court "Your dishonor," claims that the Court is "both a communistic argument or fascist which for all intent and purposed are the same dam thing [sic]" and informs the Court that "You and your compadres are the problem that plagues this world and not a solution kapish'[sic]." Moreover, plaintiff states: in ¶ 26, "Your dishonorable unconstitutional hypocritical order is meaningless and I do need to comply at all [sic]"; in ¶ 27, "Your dishonor futile attempt to muzzle me only prolongs my pain and suffering [sic]"; and, in ¶ 31, "I am not your sheep for a slaughter. You try but will fail to set my world on fire rather it is your universe that will burn . . . I will rise like Phoenix out of ashes and will reverse your malicious Swiss cheese order . . . You and Schechter only prolong my pain and [*5]suffering and this I cannot and will not live with. I will do my crying in the rain. Donald Schechter Eureka moment is short lived [sic]."

Moreover, plaintiff did an internet search about the Court, reciting personal information about myself and my family that appeared in the New York Times on August 31, 2009, which is totally irrelevant to the instant motion. For example, he wrote, in ¶ 16, "You were a union representative and once walked a picket line with his wife . . . who was a teacher, too . . . Ooh schools in US suuuuuucccccckkkkkkssssss . . . You are not supposed to be picketing with UFT and quiet unethical conduct [sic]." Then, in oral argument, plaintiff attacked me for engaging in picketing, which occurred years before I became a judge, let alone a Member of the Bar. It is not a secret that years before my election as a judge I was a New York City teacher, United Federation of Teachers Chapter Chairman and on strike in 1968 and 1975. Yet, at p. 26, lines 5 – 22, plaintiff engaged in slander, equating events of 1968 and 1975 with the present"

"Clearly, the pattern of plaintiff BREYTMAN’s conduct in the instant action is subject to costs and sanctions. Plaintiff’s arguments in his papers, in support of the instant motion, and in the June 14, 2011 oral argument are replete with threatening, defamatory and malicious statements about defendants SCHECHTER and the Court. They are frivolous and "completely without merit in law or fact." Plaintiff BREYTMAN failed to make any specific allegations that the Court misapprehended or overlooked any matters of fact and law. The instant motion is but another example of plaintiff’s continued harassment of defendants and abuse of the judicial process, with the addition of personal invective and animus directed at the Court. The instant motion prolonged this litigation and attempts "to harass or maliciously injure" defendants SCHECHTER and the Court. In this time of budgetary cuts, combined with increased caseloads, the Court does not need to waste its scarce resources to be the arena for plaintiff BREYTMAN’s personal vendettas against defendants and the Court.

Therefore, based upon the totality of plaintiff BREYTMAN’S frivolous conduct in making the instant motion, the Court finds it is appropriate to award costs of $1,700.00 to defendants SCHECHTER for 10 hours of attorney’s fees at $170.00 per hour. Further, for the waste of judicial resources and "to deter vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics" by plaintiff BREYTMAN, the Court, in its discretion, imposes financial sanctions of $2,500.00 upon plaintiff BREYTMAN
 

Attorneys frequently use LLPs or PCs as their corporate identity. Does this really make a difference in small or single attorney settings? The short answer is: "yes!" in Teodorescu v Resnick & Binder, P.C. ;2010 NY Slip Op 20400 ;Supreme Court, Kings County ;Kurtz, J. we see what happens when plaintiff fails to name the individual attorneys,
 

"During the approximately two years this action was stayed, the attorneys who formed the defendant professional corporation, David Joseph Resnick and Serge Yakov Binder (hereinafter "Resnick" and "Binder"), were both disbarred. Plaintiff now moves to have the stay vacated and this action placed on the trial calendar and for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add Resnick and Binder as individual defendants pursuant to CPLR §203(b), since the statute of limitations as to these defendants has already expired.

A plaintiff seeking the benefit of the relation-back doctrine must establish the existence of a mistake concerning the defendant’s identity that prevented plaintiff from serving that defendant before the statute of limitations expired. See Bryant v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 59 AD3d 655, 656 (2d Dept 2009). Evaluation of an alleged mistake then turns on whether the mistake interfered with plaintiff’s ability to name all of the proper defendants prior to expiration of the limitation period. Compare Monir v. Khandakar, 30 AD3d at 489, supra (finding plaintiff’s failure to add a professional corporation to her medical malpractice claims against the defendant dentist to be a mistake based upon her lack of knowledge as to the corporation’s existence) with Contos v. Mahoney, 36 AD3d 646, 647 (2d Dept 2007) (declining to apply the relation-back doctrine where plaintiff failed to sue the defendant lessor in a timely manner, despite receiving a copy of a Lease Termination Statement identifying Nissan as the [*3]lessor prior to the expiration of the limitation period.) Under these guidelines, when a plaintiff is aware of the defendants’ potential liability and deliberately decides not to assert a claim against them, there is no mistake and thus no relation-back. See Buran v. Coupal, 87 NY2d at 181, supra. Under such circumstances, a "plaintiff should not be given a second opportunity to assert that claim after the limitations period has expired (citations omitted)." Id. The Court concludes that in order for plaintiff to receive the benefit of the relation-back doctrine, all three prongs enunciated in Brock, as modified by the Court of Appeals in Buran, must be satisfied.

The Court finds that plaintiff has failed, however, to satisfy the third prong under the Brock test because plaintiff knew of the proposed defendants’ potential liability at the time she filed a legal malpractice action against defendant. Finally, since the relation-back doctrine as a whole hinges on the sufficiency of notice to the proposed new defendants within the statutory limitations period, the correct inquiry is not whether Resnick and Binder were aware of the charges brought by plaintiff against defendant, but whether such knowledge could reasonably have led them to the conclusion that they were intentionally omitted as parties to the action and were, thus, no longer at risk of litigation. "
 

There are conflicting rules in the 4 departments of New York. In legal malpractice, it is plaintiff’s obligation to demonstrate that a hypothetical judgment could be collected in a legal malpractice case in the 2d, 3d and 4th departments. In the First Department, it is an affirmitive defense for defendant to prove.

Here is a procedural case from the 4th Department on the issue. Williams v Kublick
2007 NY Slip Op 04932  Appellate Division, Fourth Department .

"We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. In granting the motion, the court determined, inter alia, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff is unable to prove that defendants’ [*2]negligence is a proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages (see Robbins v Harris Beach & Wilcox, 291 AD2d 797, 798). That was error."

"A necessary element of a cause of action for legal malpractice is the collectibility of the damages in the underlying action (see McKenna v Forsyth & Forsyth, 280 AD2d 79, 82-83, lv denied 96 NY2d 720; cf. Lindenman v Kreitzer, 7 AD3d 830, 835). Here, regardless of whether the value of the property was improperly considered by the experts, we conclude that the otherwise conflicting opinions of the experts concerning the value of the assets of the joint venture precluded the court from determining as a matter of law that defendants established that plaintiff is unable to prove that he could collect damages in the underlying lawsuits (see generally Simmons v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 1117; Herzog v Schroeder, 9 AD3d 669, 670)."

As we come up on the end of the baseball season, we are reminded of the Yogi Beria phrase.  Here inPsomostithis v Matthews   2012 NY Slip Op 32232(U)   August 20, 2012   Supreme Court, Queens County   Docket Number: 15200/06   Judge: Martin J. Schulman we see that processing and succeeding at a legal malpractice case is sometimes only the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

"This action was commenced in 2006 for legal malpractice, arising out of the representation of plaintiff in a personal injury action by defendant Paul C. Matthews, Esq. in March of 1998, when plaintiff was injured on a ship. The underlying action was ultimately dismissed. Subsequent to the commencement of this action, defendant was declared an incapacitated person, and co-guardians were appointed to him by order dated July 11, 2008 (Sandra L. Sgroi, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County). The original coguardians were Stephen Masom and Vera Matthews, Mr. Matthews’ wife. Vera Matthews subsequently passed away, and Stephen Masom was appointed successor
guardian.
 

This action was set down for trial on June 22, 2009. After consulting with, and obtaining the consent of the guardian, Stephen Masom, defense counsel agreed to settle this case in the amount of $350,000.00, with payment to be made four months from June 22, 2009. It was also agreed that judgment interest, at 9% per annum, would accrue on the settlement amount. This settlement agreement was confirmed in writing by defense counsel, and agreed to by the guardian, Stephen Masom, who was also copied on the terms of the settlement. Thereafter, defense counsel sent plaintiff a “Seamen’s Release”, which plaintiff executed and returned on July 2, 2009.

The settlement principal was not paid, and on January 5, 2010, plaintiff moved to compel payment of the settlement and to enter judgment against defendant. In an order of this court dated January 27, 2010, the motion was denied with leave to renew, if necessary, following the resolution of the guardianship proceeding in Suffolk County. By order dated May 23, 2011, the Honorable Martha L. Luft, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted plaintiff leave to enter judgment without further notice against defendant Matthews for the unpaid settlement in the amount of $350,000.00, plus interest, pursuant to CPLR §5003-a. In that order, the guardian, Stephen Masom, was granted the power
and duty to take steps to market and/or mortgage certain real properties of defendant Matthews to secure sufficient proceeds to satisfy the obligation owed plaintiff.

That branch of defendant’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR §3217(a)(2), Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21(b), (c) & (d) and CPLR §5015(a), to set aside the settlement of this action and to vacate the order entered on August 26, 2011, and the judgment entered on October 17, 2011 is denied. Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly set aside (see, e.g., Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573), especially, where, as here, the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel (See, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; see also, Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc., 287 AD2d 497 [2001]; Kazimierski v Weiss, 252 AD2d 481 [1998].) Relief from a stipulation will be granted only upon a showing of
good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake. (See Hallock v State of New York, supra; Kelley v Chavez, 33 AD3d 590 [2006]; Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc., supra.)  In this case, defendant has failed to make the requisite showing of good cause sufficient to invalidate the parties’ stipulation of settlement. (See Macaluso v Macaluso, 62 AD3d 963 [2009]; see also Trakansook v Kerry, 45 AD3d 673 [2007]; Matthews v
Castro, 35 AD3d 403 [2006].) "

As we come up on the end of the baseball season, we are reminded of the Yogi Beria phrase.  Here inPsomostithis v Matthews   2012 NY Slip Op 32232(U)   August 20, 2012   Supreme Court, Queens County   Docket Number: 15200/06   Judge: Martin J. Schulman we see that processing and succeeding at a legal malpractice case is sometimes only the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.

"This action was commenced in 2006 for legal malpractice, arising out of the representation of plaintiff in a personal injury action by defendant Paul C. Matthews, Esq. in March of 1998, when plaintiff was injured on a ship. The underlying action was ultimately dismissed. Subsequent to the commencement of this action, defendant was declared an incapacitated person, and co-guardians were appointed to him by order dated July 11, 2008 (Sandra L. Sgroi, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County). The original coguardians were Stephen Masom and Vera Matthews, Mr. Matthews’ wife. Vera Matthews subsequently passed away, and Stephen Masom was appointed successor
guardian.
 

This action was set down for trial on June 22, 2009. After consulting with, and obtaining the consent of the guardian, Stephen Masom, defense counsel agreed to settle this case in the amount of $350,000.00, with payment to be made four months from June 22, 2009. It was also agreed that judgment interest, at 9% per annum, would accrue on the settlement amount. This settlement agreement was confirmed in writing by defense counsel, and agreed to by the guardian, Stephen Masom, who was also copied on the terms of the settlement. Thereafter, defense counsel sent plaintiff a “Seamen’s Release”, which plaintiff executed and returned on July 2, 2009.

The settlement principal was not paid, and on January 5, 2010, plaintiff moved to compel payment of the settlement and to enter judgment against defendant. In an order of this court dated January 27, 2010, the motion was denied with leave to renew, if necessary, following the resolution of the guardianship proceeding in Suffolk County. By order dated May 23, 2011, the Honorable Martha L. Luft, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted plaintiff leave to enter judgment without further notice against defendant Matthews for the unpaid settlement in the amount of $350,000.00, plus interest, pursuant to CPLR §5003-a. In that order, the guardian, Stephen Masom, was granted the power
and duty to take steps to market and/or mortgage certain real properties of defendant Matthews to secure sufficient proceeds to satisfy the obligation owed plaintiff.

That branch of defendant’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR §3217(a)(2), Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21(b), (c) & (d) and CPLR §5015(a), to set aside the settlement of this action and to vacate the order entered on August 26, 2011, and the judgment entered on October 17, 2011 is denied. Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly set aside (see, e.g., Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573), especially, where, as here, the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel (See, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; see also, Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc., 287 AD2d 497 [2001]; Kazimierski v Weiss, 252 AD2d 481 [1998].) Relief from a stipulation will be granted only upon a showing of
good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake. (See Hallock v State of New York, supra; Kelley v Chavez, 33 AD3d 590 [2006]; Town of Clarkstown v M.R.O. Pump & Tank, Inc., supra.)  In this case, defendant has failed to make the requisite showing of good cause sufficient to invalidate the parties’ stipulation of settlement. (See Macaluso v Macaluso, 62 AD3d 963 [2009]; see also Trakansook v Kerry, 45 AD3d 673 [2007]; Matthews v
Castro, 35 AD3d 403 [2006].) "