Pennings v. Pennings Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pennings v. Pennings Enterprises, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 388, 736 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1304

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 388 (Pennings v. Pennings Enterprises, 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

Pennings v. Pennings Enterprises, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 388, 736 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, [389]*389inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated April 9, 2001, which, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion to hold her in contempt for failing to comply with a stipulation of settlement entered into on August 28, 2000, and denied, among other things, that branch of her cross motion which was to vacate the stipulation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements required to rescind the stipulation of settlement on the ground of her unilateral mistake (see, Almap Holdings v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 196 AD2d 518, 519). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion to hold her in contempt for failing to comply with a stipulation of settlement entered into on August 28, 2000, and denied, among other things, that branch of her cross motion which was to vacate the stipulation. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, [389]*389inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated April 9, 2001, which, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion to hold her in contempt for failing to comply with a stipulation of settlement entered into on August 28, 2000, and denied, among other things, that branch of her cross motion which was to vacate the stipulation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements required to rescind the stipulation of settlement on the ground of her unilateral mistake (see, Almap Holdings v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 196 AD2d 518, 519). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion to hold her in contempt for failing to comply with a stipulation of settlement entered into on August 28, 2000, and denied, among other things, that branch of her cross motion which was to vacate the stipulation. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 388, 736 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennings-v-pennings-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack