Daniels v. Concourse Animal Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniels v. Concourse Animal Hospital

41 A.D.3d 284, 836 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedJune 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 284 (Daniels v. Concourse Animal Hospital) 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

Daniels v. Concourse Animal Hospital, 41 A.D.3d 284, 836 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 8, 2006, which denied the motion of defendants Concourse Animal Hospital and Katz to vacate a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if these defendants’ trial counsel lacked actual authority to enter into the open court settlement, he had apparent authority to do so (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231-232 [1984]). It matters not that neither of these defendants was actually present (see e.g. Stoll v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 268 AD2d 379, 380 [2000]). Their claim of fraud, mistake or accident is unpersuasive. The argument that the settlement was illegal is without merit. That the settlement calls for the hospital and Katz to issue a Form 1099 is enough indication that plaintiff did not intend to avoid paying taxes. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered June 8, 2006, which denied the motion of defendants Concourse Animal Hospital and Katz to vacate a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if these defendants’ trial counsel lacked actual authority to enter into the open court settlement, he had apparent authority to do so (see e.g. Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231-232 [1984]). It matters not that neither of these defendants was actually present (see e.g. Stoll v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 268 AD2d 379, 380 [2000]). Their claim of fraud, mistake or accident is unpersuasive. The argument that the settlement was illegal is without merit. That the settlement calls for the hospital and Katz to issue a Form 1099 is enough indication that plaintiff did not intend to avoid paying taxes. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 284, 836 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-concourse-animal-hospital-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack