Elite 29 Realty LLC v. Pitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elite 29 Realty LLC v. Pitt

39 A.D.3d 264, 833 N.Y.S.2d 456

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

DecidedApril 5, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 264 (Elite 29 Realty LLC v. Pitt) 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

Elite 29 Realty LLC v. Pitt, 39 A.D.3d 264, 833 N.Y.S.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered August 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the parties’ stipulated settlement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that the Peluso & Touger law firm lacked standing to submit a motion on defendants’ behalf to vacate the stipulated settlement (see Dobbins v County of Erie, 58 AD2d 733 [1977]; Szuldiner v City of New York, 18 AD2d 897 [1963]; and see Ottaviano v Genex Coop., Inc., 15 AD3d 924 [2005]; cf. EIFS, Inc. v Morie Co., 298 AD2d 548 [2002]; Diamadopolis v Balfour, 152 AD2d 532 [1989]). No exception to these rules is warranted in this case, particularly since the firm which sought to be substituted and filed the motion did not in fact represent all of defendants, yet purported to make the motion on their behalf. Although Peluso & Touger was without standing to move on defendants’ behalf, the court properly considered the firm’s submissions on behalf of defendants who had belatedly consented to its substitution as their counsel, in opposition to plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the settlement, and correctly found that the parties freely entered into the settlement after extensive negotiations and that it should therefore be enforced. Although defendants now challenge certain terms of the settlement, the settlement, stipulated on the record immediately before the matter was to be tried, contains an arbitration provision permitting the court to consider and determine any dispute.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered August 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the parties’ stipulated settlement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that the Peluso & Touger law firm lacked standing to submit a motion on defendants’ behalf to vacate the stipulated settlement (see Dobbins v County of Erie, 58 AD2d 733 [1977]; Szuldiner v City of New York, 18 AD2d 897 [1963]; and see Ottaviano v Genex Coop., Inc., 15 AD3d 924 [2005]; cf. EIFS, Inc. v Morie Co., 298 AD2d 548 [2002]; Diamadopolis v Balfour, 152 AD2d 532 [1989]). No exception to these rules is warranted in this case, particularly since the firm which sought to be substituted and filed the motion did not in fact represent all of defendants, yet purported to make the motion on their behalf. Although Peluso & Touger was without standing to move on defendants’ behalf, the court properly considered the firm’s submissions on behalf of defendants who had belatedly consented to its substitution as their counsel, in opposition to plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the settlement, and correctly found that the parties freely entered into the settlement after extensive negotiations and that it should therefore be enforced. Although defendants now challenge certain terms of the settlement, the settlement, stipulated on the record immediately before the matter was to be tried, contains an arbitration provision permitting the court to consider and determine any dispute.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 264, 833 N.Y.S.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elite-29-realty-llc-v-pitt-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack