In re Landis (89 A.D.3d 642, 2011)

As the parties concede, the IAS court erred when it acted on its own initiative in vacating the parties’ stipulation of settlement of this article 81 proceeding (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Charlop v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 64 AD3d 486, 486 [2009]). Rather, the proper course of action would have been to hold an evidentiary hearing (see Kabir v Kabir, 85 AD3d 1127, 1127-1128 [2011]). Alternatively, the petitioner or cross petitioner could have moved for enforcement of the stipulation (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 230). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Motion to strike briefs of cross petitioner and temporary personal needs guardian denied.