Gasparello v. A. Ottavino Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gasparello v. A. Ottavino Corp.

257 A.D.2d 601, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 324

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 601 (Gasparello v. A. Ottavino Corp.) 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

Gasparello v. A. Ottavino Corp., 257 A.D.2d 601, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated December 23, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint in the principal sum of $20,000, based upon a purported settlement of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the purported settlement did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 2104. Thus, enforcement of the settlement was not warranted and the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment (see, Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1; Phillips v Pamper Decorating Serv., 228 AD2d 425; Venuti v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 715; Marine Midland Bank v Ramleh Enters., 202 AD2d 403; Zambrana v Memnon, 181 AD2d 730; Kalomiris v County of Nassau, 121 AD2d 367). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated December 23, 1997, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint in the principal sum of $20,000, based upon a purported settlement of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the purported settlement did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 2104. Thus, enforcement of the settlement was not warranted and the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment (see, Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1; Phillips v Pamper Decorating Serv., 228 AD2d 425; Venuti v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 715; Marine Midland Bank v Ramleh Enters., 202 AD2d 403; Zambrana v Memnon, 181 AD2d 730; Kalomiris v County of Nassau, 121 AD2d 367). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 601, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gasparello-v-a-ottavino-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack