|
16 A.D.3d 133, 790 N.Y.S.2d 447, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2005)
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.
Szold & Brandwen, P.C., New York (Arthur R. Block of counsel), for respondents. ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SULLIVAN, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS, JJ. [1]  *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] [3] 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 The Hudson Valley Law Firm of Ostrer Rosenwasser, LLP, represents clients with personal injury, civil and criminal litigation, matrimonial law issues, in both New York State, and Federal Courts including Chester, Montgomery, Newburgh, Middletown, Kingston, Ellenville, Monticello, Poughkeepsie, Goshen, New City, Wurtsboro, New Platz, Ulster County, Sullivan County, Rockland County, Dutchess County and Orange County, NY. * CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards, and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings evaluate two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards. |
45 Attorney and Client
Ostrer Rosenwasser, LLP
Hudson Valley
Law Attorneys
P.O. Box 509
111 Main Street
Chester, New York 10918
Telephone: (845) 469-7577
Toll Free: (877) 469-7577
Fax: (845) 469-8690
P.O. Box 69
201 Ward Street
Montgomery, New York 12549
Telephone: (845) 457-4646
Fax: (845) 457-9007
