King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

267 A.D.2d 48, 699 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12686

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 48 (King v. New York City Health & Hospitals 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

King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 267 A.D.2d 48, 699 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on a record demonstrating that the action was settled in open court after settlement discussions that actively engaged the parties, their attorneys and the court. Moreover, plaintiff himself acknowledged the settlement in a letter. Plaintiffs’ present dissatisfaction with the amount of the settlement is not a valid basis for vacating the settlement, absent a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on a record demonstrating that the action was settled in open court after settlement discussions that actively engaged the parties, their attorneys and the court. Moreover, plaintiff himself acknowledged the settlement in a letter. Plaintiffs’ present dissatisfaction with the amount of the settlement is not a valid basis for vacating the settlement, absent a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 48, 699 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack