Iodice v. Iodice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iodice v. Iodice

180 A.D.2d 563

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 9, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly held that the letters exchanged between the parties’ attorneys do not evidence a definite, binding agreement settling the action. Particularly persuasive is the fact that the letter written by defendant’s counsel clearly stated that it constituted a proposal of settlement, and contemplated that there be further negotiation (see, Brause v Goldman, 10 AD2d 328, affd 9 NY2d 620). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 9, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly held that the letters exchanged between the parties’ attorneys do not evidence a definite, binding agreement settling the action. Particularly persuasive is the fact that the letter written by defendant’s counsel clearly stated that it constituted a proposal of settlement, and contemplated that there be further negotiation (see, Brause v Goldman, 10 AD2d 328, affd 9 NY2d 620). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Iodice v. Iodice, 180 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

180 A.D.2d 563 (Iodice v. Iodice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related