Children's Day Treatment Center & School, Inc. v. Dorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Children's Day Treatment Center & School, Inc. v. Dorn

83 A.D.3d 425, 922 N.Y.S.2d 7

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 5, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 425 (Children's Day Treatment Center & School, Inc. v. Dorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Children's Day Treatment Center & School, Inc. v. Dorn, 83 A.D.3d 425, 922 N.Y.S.2d 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 28, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded defendant the sum of $6,603.70, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decision, same court and Justice, rendered October 23, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

No seven-member board of directors of plaintiff manifested to defendant that the five members who purported to enter into the separation agreement that defendant seeks to enforce had the authority to do so (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]). Those five members “[could] not by [their] own acts imbue [themselves] with apparent authority” (see id.). Moreover, to the extent defendant relied on an appearance of authority arising from the board president’s or plaintiff’s [426]*426counsel’s actions in negotiating and drafting the agreement, her reliance was unreasonable, since she was familiar with the bylaws requiring that the board be composed of a minimum of seven members, she was aware that there were only five members when the agreement was entered into, and she had her own counsel (see Meyerson v Contracting Plumbers Assn. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., 606 F Supp 282, 289-290 [SD NY 1985]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 28, 2009, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded defendant the sum of $6,603.70, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decision, same court and Justice, rendered October 23, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

No seven-member board of directors of plaintiff manifested to defendant that the five members who purported to enter into the separation agreement that defendant seeks to enforce had the authority to do so (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]). Those five members “[could] not by [their] own acts imbue [themselves] with apparent authority” (see id.). Moreover, to the extent defendant relied on an appearance of authority arising from the board president’s or plaintiff’s [426]*426counsel’s actions in negotiating and drafting the agreement, her reliance was unreasonable, since she was familiar with the bylaws requiring that the board be composed of a minimum of seven members, she was aware that there were only five members when the agreement was entered into, and she had her own counsel (see Meyerson v Contracting Plumbers Assn. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., 606 F Supp 282, 289-290 [SD NY 1985]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 425, 922 N.Y.S.2d 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childrens-day-treatment-center-school-inc-v-dorn-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack