Friedman v. Garey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Garey

8 A.D.3d 129, 779 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8534

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

DecidedJune 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 129 (Friedman v. Garey) 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

Friedman v. Garey, 8 A.D.3d 129, 779 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered February 9, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion to enforce the stipulated agreement settling this divorce action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The written settlement agreement, although unsigned by defendant, was stipulated to by counsel in open court and was thus binding on the parties (CPLR 2104; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Rubenfeld v Rubenfeld, 279 AD2d 153 [2001]). Moreover, defendant implicitly ratified the settlement by accepting substantial sums under its terms, and with respect to her reversal of course on the confidentiality provision now at issue, by failing to make formal objection during the months in which various other provisions were being negotiated (Clark v Bristol-Myers Squibb & Co., 306 AD2d 82, 85 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered February 9, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion to enforce the stipulated agreement settling this divorce action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The written settlement agreement, although unsigned by defendant, was stipulated to by counsel in open court and was thus binding on the parties (CPLR 2104; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Rubenfeld v Rubenfeld, 279 AD2d 153 [2001]). Moreover, defendant implicitly ratified the settlement by accepting substantial sums under its terms, and with respect to her reversal of course on the confidentiality provision now at issue, by failing to make formal objection during the months in which various other provisions were being negotiated (Clark v Bristol-Myers Squibb & Co., 306 AD2d 82, 85 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 129, 779 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-garey-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack