In Vermilyea v. Vermilyea (224 A.D.2d 759 [1996]), the court was faced with a situation similar to the instant case. In Vermilyea, the plaintiff-wife moved to vacate an oral stipulation which she claimed was based upon a "mutual mistake." The plaintiff claimed that the parties had mistakenly used an incorrect present value figure for the defendant-husband's pension. The court found that the only evidence of mistake was plaintiff's own counsel's conclusory affidavit that subsequent to the stipulation he was advised by the pension office that the value was incorrect. The court held that this amounted to nothing more than a unilateral mistake and that there were no facts to show fraud or overreaching on the defendant's part. There was no unfairness since both parties relied on the same information. The correct amount could easily have been ascertained. Both parties were represented by counsel and unequivocally agreed to the stipulation in open court. The court held that, "the acceptance of the pension figure may have been improvident, but the fact that it may have been a bad bargain is not sufficient to overturn or set aside an otherwise valid agreement".