Crecca v. Narofsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crecca v. Narofsky

41 A.D.3d 216, 837 N.Y.S.2d 649

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

DecidedJune 14, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 216 (Crecca v. Narofsky) 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

Crecca v. Narofsky, 41 A.D.3d 216, 837 N.Y.S.2d 649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 2, 2006, which granted petitioner’s motion to enforce the provisions of a settlement to the extent of referring the issue of accounting of unpaid monies due petitioner to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, and denied respondents’ application to dismiss petitioner’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondents’ contention, petitioner was not required to commence a plenary action to enforce the settlement. It is undisputed that although the settlement contemplated the parties would execute a stipulation of discontinuance, they never did so, nor did they enter into a judgment terminating the action. The settlement itself contains no provision unequivocally terminating the action. “Absent such termination, the court retains its supervisory power over the action and may lend aid to a party who had moved for enforcement of the settlement” (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 53 [1979]; see also Republic Leasing Co., Inc. v 112 Seventh Ave., Inc., 22 AD3d 231 [2005]; Aaron v Aaron, 2 AD3d 942, 944 [2003]; Matter of Drake, 278 AD2d 929, 930 [2000]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered November 2, 2006, which granted petitioner’s motion to enforce the provisions of a settlement to the extent of referring the issue of accounting of unpaid monies due petitioner to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, and denied respondents’ application to dismiss petitioner’s motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondents’ contention, petitioner was not required to commence a plenary action to enforce the settlement. It is undisputed that although the settlement contemplated the parties would execute a stipulation of discontinuance, they never did so, nor did they enter into a judgment terminating the action. The settlement itself contains no provision unequivocally terminating the action. “Absent such termination, the court retains its supervisory power over the action and may lend aid to a party who had moved for enforcement of the settlement” (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 53 [1979]; see also Republic Leasing Co., Inc. v 112 Seventh Ave., Inc., 22 AD3d 231 [2005]; Aaron v Aaron, 2 AD3d 942, 944 [2003]; Matter of Drake, 278 AD2d 929, 930 [2000]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 216, 837 N.Y.S.2d 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crecca-v-narofsky-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack