Charlop v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2009)

Our plain-English summary of Charlop v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, July 21, 2009).

Eugene Charlop sued A.O. Smith Water Products, Kohler Co. and other defendants in a case alleging he developed asbestos-related mesothelioma. The opinion does not describe his work or how he was exposed. The dispute on appeal was procedural. The trial court had granted a motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement, and Kohler appealed. The First Department reversed. It explained that trial courts have discretion to relieve a party from a stipulation, but that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside. A party needs sufficient cause, such as fraud, mistake, collusion or accident, and must act with reasonable promptness. Relying on an earlier decision, Structured Asset Sales Group LLC v Freeman, where a party waited two months, the court concluded that the length of time before the request to vacate was made required holding the party to the stipulation. The court ordered the action dismissed.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
• Decided: July 21, 2009
• Citation: 2009 NY Slip Op 05911
• Stage: Appeal from other
• State: New York

Outcome. The First Department held that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff Charlop's motion to vacate a stipulation, in an appeal by defendant Kohler Co., and ordered dismissal of the action as to Kohler.

What the court held. A party will not be relieved from a stipulation unless there is sufficient cause such as fraud, mistake, collusion or accident, and must seek to vacate it with reasonable promptness; here the delay before seeking vacatur required adherence to the stipulation.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Settlements and Releases.

The people and their exposure

• Eugene Charlop: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Kohler Co. (manufacturer)
• A.O. Smith Water Products (manufacturer)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

2009 NY Slip Op 05911

EUGENE CHARLOP, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, ET AL., Defendants, KOHLER CO., Defendant-Appellant.

884N.

Decided July 21, 2009.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, New York (Windy R. Kagan of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter, JJ.

The power of a trial court to exercise supervisory control over all phases of an action or proceeding has long been recognized, including the discretionary authority to relieve a party from the consequences of a stipulation effected during litigation (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 54 [1979]). In this case alleging asbestos-related mesothelioma, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to vacate.

Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored and should not be lightly cast aside (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Matter of Kanter, 209 AD2d 365 [1994]). Thus, a party will not be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation unless there was sufficient cause to invalidate it, such as fraud, mistake, collusion, accident, or some other ground (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230; Daniel v Long Is. Univ., 184 AD2d 350, 352 [1992]). The party seeking to vacate the stipulation should do so with reasonable promptness under the circumstances (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 231)[parties bound by a stipulation where they voiced no objection for two months following the execution of a stipulation]). In Structured Asset Sales Group LLC v Freeman (45 AD3d 327 [2007]), the parties mutually decided to discontinue the action. The plaintiff received the proposed stipulation — which stated on its face that the discontinuance was "with prejudice" — and held onto it for two months before executing it (id. at 328). The plaintiff then sought to set aside the stipulation, a request which was denied by Supreme Court. This Court upheld the dismissal of the action (id.). The particular facts of the instant case, including the length of the time before the request to vacate the stipulation was made, require adherence to the holding of Structured Asset Sales Group LLC and mandate dismissal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST

DEPARTMENT.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites