Makastchian v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Makastchian v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

245 A.D.2d 23, 665 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 23 (Makastchian v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.) 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

Makastchian v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 23, 665 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for approval and enforcement of a purported class action settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the parties intended to be bound only by a formal written settlement agreement. Since it was never achieved, the purported agreement cannot be enforced against defendants (see, Matter of United States Surgical Corp. v Pignataro, 157 AD2d 547). Nor can an enforceable settlement be drawn from the parties’ correspondence, which does not address several material terms (see, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109-110), including, in particular, attorneys’ fees (see, Evans v Jeff D., 475 US 717, 734). We reject plaintiffs’ argument that the court should have ruled separately on attorneys’ fees despite the absence of an express request by the litigants (see, Huertas v East Riv. Hous. Corp., 813 F2d 580). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for approval and enforcement of a purported class action settlement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the parties intended to be bound only by a formal written settlement agreement. Since it was never achieved, the purported agreement cannot be enforced against defendants (see, Matter of United States Surgical Corp. v Pignataro, 157 AD2d 547). Nor can an enforceable settlement be drawn from the parties’ correspondence, which does not address several material terms (see, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109-110), including, in particular, attorneys’ fees (see, Evans v Jeff D., 475 US 717, 734). We reject plaintiffs’ argument that the court should have ruled separately on attorneys’ fees despite the absence of an express request by the litigants (see, Huertas v East Riv. Hous. Corp., 813 F2d 580). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 23, 665 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/makastchian-v-oxford-health-plans-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack