Jump to Navigation
Katzen v Twin Pines

16 A.D.3d 133, 790 N.Y.S.2d 447, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2005)

View New York Official Reports version

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mortimer J. KATZEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TWIN PINES FUEL CORP., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
March 3, 2005.

Background: Defendant moved for enforcement of parties' purported settlement agreement. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, Norma Ruiz, J., granted motion and plaintiff appealed.

Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that stipulation of settlement entered into between plaintiff's attorney and defendant was not binding on plaintiff.

Reversed.

West Headnotes


[1] KeyCite Notes Link to KeyCite Notes

Key Symbol45 Attorney and Client
   Key Symbol45II Retainer and Authority
     Key Symbol45k101 Settlements, Compromises, and Releases
       Key Symbol45k101(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Stipulation of settlement entered into between plaintiff's attorney and defendant was not binding on plaintiff, where proposed settlement agreement was reached out of court and releases and stipulation of settlement were rejected and never signed by plaintiff. McKinney's CPLR 2104.

[2] KeyCite Notes Link to KeyCite Notes

Key Symbol45 Attorney and Client
   Key Symbol45II Retainer and Authority
     Key Symbol45k101 Settlements, Compromises, and Releases
       Key Symbol45k101(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

An attorney may not settle or compromise his or her client's case in the absence of consent by the client.

[3] KeyCite Notes Link to KeyCite Notes

Key Symbol45 Attorney and Client
   Key Symbol45II Retainer and Authority
     Key Symbol45k101 Settlements, Compromises, and Releases
       Key Symbol45k101(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

While a stipulation of settlement made by counsel in open court may bind his or her client even where it exceeds his or her actual authority, such is not the case where the proposed settlement agreement was reached out of court and the requisite releases and stipulation of settlement were rejected and never signed by plaintiff.

**448 (Cite as: 16 A.D.3d 133, 790 N.Y.S.2d 447, **448)

Benjamin Ostrer & Associates, P.C., Chester (Benjamin Ostrer of counsel), for appellant.
Szold & Brandwen, P.C., New York (Arthur R. Block of counsel), for respondents.

ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, JJ.

[1] Link to KeyCite Notes *134 (Cite as: 16 A.D.3d 133, *134, 790 N.Y.S.2d 447, **448)
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered November 11, 2003, which granted defendants' motion for enforcement of the parties' purported settlement agreement and for sanctions only to the extent of declaring the settlement agreement valid and binding and directing plaintiff to execute and deliver the requisite releases and stipulation of discontinuance, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants' motion denied in all respects.

[2] Link to KeyCite Notes[3] Link to KeyCite Notes It is well settled that an attorney may not settle or compromise his or her client's case in the absence of consent by the client ( Barrett v. Third Ave. R.R. Co., 45 N.Y. 628, 635 [1871]; see also Bonnette v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 3 N.Y.3d 281, 785 N.Y.S.2d 738, 819 N.E.2d 206 [2004] ). While a stipulation of settlement made by counsel in open court may bind his or her client even where it exceeds his or her actual authority ( Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 [1984] ), such is not the case where, as here, the proposed settlement agreement was reached out of court and the requisite releases and stipulation of settlement were rejected and never signed by plaintiff. In such a case, the authority of an attorney to enter into settlement negotiations does not necessarily constitute authority to enter into a binding settlement under CPLR 2104 ( see Suslow v. Rush, 161 A.D.2d 235, 554 N.Y.S.2d 620 [1990] ). Thus, although plaintiff's prior attorney was retained to represent him in this matter and was directed to initiate settlement negotiations with defendants, it is apparent that plaintiff did not consent to the proposed settlement and there is nothing in the record to the contrary. If defendants had reason to believe that plaintiff had authorized his prior attorney to enter into the settlement, it was incumbent upon them to come forward with proof to that effect ( see Silver v. Parkdale Bake Shop, 8 A.D.2d 607, 607-608, 184 N.Y.S.2d 714 [1959] ).

Copr. (C) West 2006 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2005.
Katzen v. Twin Pines Fuel Corp.
16 A.D.3d 133, 790 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 01625
Our Firm In The News (More)

Ostrer & Hoovler, P.C.
Hudson Valley Attorneys

Chester Office
P.O. Box 509
111 Main Street
Chester, NY 10918
Telephone: (845) 469-7577
Toll Free: (877) 469-7577
Fax: (845) 469-8690
Email Us | Map & Directions