Phillips v. Pamper Decorating Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phillips v. Pamper Decorating Service

228 A.D.2d 425, 643 N.Y.2d 666, 643 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6214

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

DecidedJune 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 425 (Phillips v. Pamper Decorating Service) 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

Phillips v. Pamper Decorating Service, 228 A.D.2d 425, 643 N.Y.2d 666, 643 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

We agree with the appellant that there is insufficient evidence that a final settlement agreement was ever reached in open court (see, CPLR 2104). The notation in the court’s personal file, which stated that the appellant offered $100,000 in settlement of the action does not establish that a settlement was reached and, in any event, was insufficient to satisfy the open court requirement of CPLR 2104 (see, Zambrana v Memnon, 181 AD2d 730). Moreover, the parties were in dispute as to whether the settlement offer of the appellant’s counsel was conditioned upon his client’s approval. Therefore, the court erred in enforcing the purported settlement agreement (see, Venuti v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 715; Marine Midland Bank v Ramleh Enters., 202 AD2d 403). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to award costs on this appeal to the appellant (see, CPLR 8101). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

We agree with the appellant that there is insufficient evidence that a final settlement agreement was ever reached in open court (see, CPLR 2104). The notation in the court’s personal file, which stated that the appellant offered $100,000 in settlement of the action does not establish that a settlement was reached and, in any event, was insufficient to satisfy the open court requirement of CPLR 2104 (see, Zambrana v Memnon, 181 AD2d 730). Moreover, the parties were in dispute as to whether the settlement offer of the appellant’s counsel was conditioned upon his client’s approval. Therefore, the court erred in enforcing the purported settlement agreement (see, Venuti v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 715; Marine Midland Bank v Ramleh Enters., 202 AD2d 403). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to award costs on this appeal to the appellant (see, CPLR 8101). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 425, 643 N.Y.2d 666, 643 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-pamper-decorating-service-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack