Citibank, N. A. v. Bhide

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Bhide

261 A.D.2d 429, 687 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4777

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 429 (Citibank, N. A. v. Bhide) 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

Citibank, N. A. v. Bhide, 261 A.D.2d 429, 687 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Vidyadhar A. Bhide and Shobha V. Bhide appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered March 18, 1998, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement between them and the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ challenge to the stipulation of settlement entered into in this action is unpersuasive. The credible evidence in the record refutes the appellants’ claim that the attorney who agreed to the settlement on their behalf failed to explain the significance of the term “with prejudice”, and they have failed to establish any valid basis for vacating the stipulation of settlement (see, Yuzary v Yuzary, 223 AD2d 540; Arvelo v Multi Trucking, 194 AD2d 758). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Vidyadhar A. Bhide and Shobha V. Bhide appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered March 18, 1998, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement between them and the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ challenge to the stipulation of settlement entered into in this action is unpersuasive. The credible evidence in the record refutes the appellants’ claim that the attorney who agreed to the settlement on their behalf failed to explain the significance of the term “with prejudice”, and they have failed to establish any valid basis for vacating the stipulation of settlement (see, Yuzary v Yuzary, 223 AD2d 540; Arvelo v Multi Trucking, 194 AD2d 758). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 429, 687 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-bhide-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack