Malvin v. Schwartz
This text of 397 N.E.2d 748 (Malvin v. Schwartz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Since the parties had not executed an express stipulation of discontinuance of the action, or entered judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement, the action had not terminated. Thus, the settlement was amenable to enforcement by motion (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). Furthermore, insofar as defendant was relieved from adherence to the letter of the settlement, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see, e.g., Barry v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 53 NY 536, 540).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 N.E.2d 748, 48 N.Y.2d 693, 422 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malvin-v-schwartz-ny-1979.