Platt v. Trattner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Platt v. Trattner

12 A.D.2d 527, 207 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6939

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 527 (Platt v. Trattner) 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

Platt v. Trattner, 12 A.D.2d 527, 207 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 18, 1960, which denies her motion to vacate a settlement of the action and to restore the action to its regular place on the Trial Calendar; and which also directs her to submit a general release to the defendants. Order modified by striking [528]*528out the provision directing plaintiff to submit a general release. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The sole contention advanced by plaintiff in support of her motion was set forth in an affidavit by her attorney, such contention being that the plaintiff did not acquiesce in the settlement. In our opinion, on the record before us, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to sustain her contention. In denying plaintiff’s motion, however, the learned Special Term was not authorized to direct the plaintiff to execute and deliver a general release. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 18, 1960, which denies her motion to vacate a settlement of the action and to restore the action to its regular place on the Trial Calendar; and which also directs her to submit a general release to the defendants. Order modified by striking [528]*528out the provision directing plaintiff to submit a general release. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The sole contention advanced by plaintiff in support of her motion was set forth in an affidavit by her attorney, such contention being that the plaintiff did not acquiesce in the settlement. In our opinion, on the record before us, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to sustain her contention. In denying plaintiff’s motion, however, the learned Special Term was not authorized to direct the plaintiff to execute and deliver a general release. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 527, 207 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/platt-v-trattner-nyappdiv-1960.