Hawkins v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawkins v. City of New York

40 A.D.3d 327, 833 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedMay 10, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 327 (Hawkins v. City of New York) 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

Hawkins v. City of New York, 40 A.D.3d 327, 833 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff implicitly ratified the settlement by making no formal objection for nearly seven months after being told about it (Clark v Bristol-Myers Squibb & Co., 306 AD2d 82, 85 [2003]). Furthermore, the requirements of CPLR 2104 were met when, following the conference and counsel’s acceptance of the settlement, the court clerk updated the court card to read “settled before trial” and marked the case “disposed” in the court’s records (Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1992]).

Despite plaintiffs “rejection” of the City’s offer, she is bound by the stipulation of settlement made by counsel in open court even if it exceeded his actual authority (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 228 [1984]). Indeed, plaintiff’s counsel exhibited the apparent authority to settle the case, upon which the City relied. As such, “[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” (id. at 230). Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any reason to invalidate the settlement. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny 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 (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered January 11, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff implicitly ratified the settlement by making no formal objection for nearly seven months after being told about it (Clark v Bristol-Myers Squibb & Co., 306 AD2d 82, 85 [2003]). Furthermore, the requirements of CPLR 2104 were met when, following the conference and counsel’s acceptance of the settlement, the court clerk updated the court card to read “settled before trial” and marked the case “disposed” in the court’s records (Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1992]).

Despite plaintiffs “rejection” of the City’s offer, she is bound by the stipulation of settlement made by counsel in open court even if it exceeded his actual authority (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 228 [1984]). Indeed, plaintiff’s counsel exhibited the apparent authority to settle the case, upon which the City relied. As such, “[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” (id. at 230). Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any reason to invalidate the settlement. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 327, 833 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack