Cook v. Bianco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cook v. Bianco

226 A.D. 691

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order modified by granting plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the calendar for trial, and as so modified affirmed. The agreement, dated May 5, 1927, makes no mention of the settlement or discontinuance of the action. Any oral agreement to settle the action is not binding unless made between counsel in open court (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 4), and the record before us is not sufficient to show that this was done. This decision is without prejudice to defendant, if so advised, to move to amend his answer by alleging, as a defense, the agreement of settlement claimed. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Kapper and Seeger, JJ., concur.

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

Order modified by granting plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the calendar for trial, and as so modified affirmed. The agreement, dated May 5, 1927, makes no mention of the settlement or discontinuance of the action. Any oral agreement to settle the action is not binding unless made between counsel in open court (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 4), and the record before us is not sufficient to show that this was done. This decision is without prejudice to defendant, if so advised, to move to amend his answer by alleging, as a defense, the agreement of settlement claimed. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Kapper and Seeger, JJ., concur.

Cook v. Bianco, 226 A.D. 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

226 A.D. 691 (Cook v. Bianco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related