Doolittle v. Quiggle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doolittle v. Quiggle

238 A.D.2d 949, 661 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4798

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

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 949 (Doolittle v. Quiggle) 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

Doolittle v. Quiggle, 238 A.D.2d 949, 661 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ application to resettle the order that incorporated the terms of an in-court stipulation of settlement. Although plaintiffs now claim that their attorney "misspoke” and that the terms of the stipulation relating to the width of the right-of-way were entered into under a mistake of fact, the record reflects that plaintiffs neither expressed any reservations nor raised any questions regarding its content or effect during their colloquy with the court, despite having been provided with the opportunity to do so (see, Rosato v Macier, 222 AD2d 865, 866; Matter of Goldman v Goldman, 201 AD2d 860, 861). The stipulation of settlement was complete when it was entered on the record and assented to by the parties and should therefore be enforced (see, Lynch v Lynch, 105 AD2d 1069, 1070; Owens v Lombardi, 41 AD2d 438, 439-440, lv denied 33 NY2d 515). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Falvey, J.—Quiet Title.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ application to resettle the order that incorporated the terms of an in-court stipulation of settlement. Although plaintiffs now claim that their attorney "misspoke” and that the terms of the stipulation relating to the width of the right-of-way were entered into under a mistake of fact, the record reflects that plaintiffs neither expressed any reservations nor raised any questions regarding its content or effect during their colloquy with the court, despite having been provided with the opportunity to do so (see, Rosato v Macier, 222 AD2d 865, 866; Matter of Goldman v Goldman, 201 AD2d 860, 861). The stipulation of settlement was complete when it was entered on the record and assented to by the parties and should therefore be enforced (see, Lynch v Lynch, 105 AD2d 1069, 1070; Owens v Lombardi, 41 AD2d 438, 439-440, lv denied 33 NY2d 515). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Falvey, J.—Quiet Title.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 949, 661 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doolittle-v-quiggle-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack