Rotter v. Ripka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rotter v. Ripka

138 A.D.3d 567, 28 N.Y.S.3d 597

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket877 600609/06

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 567 (Rotter v. Ripka) 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

Rotter v. Ripka, 138 A.D.3d 567, 28 N.Y.S.3d 597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 28, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement, and granted defendant Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s motion without consideration of the merits for failure to commence a plenary action pursuant to court order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is the latest in a series of disputes between the parties regarding a stipulation of settlement that was so-ordered by Supreme Court in May 2006. The instant motion by plaintiff to enforce the stipulation of settlement was correctly dismissed, because the stipulation contained an express and unconditional stipulation of discontinuance of the action, which was sufficient to terminate the action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51 [1979]; Salvador v Town of Lake George Zoning Bd., 130 AD3d 1334 [3d Dept 2015]; DiBella v Martz, 58 AD3d 935 [3d Dept 2009]; Cooley v CNYE Realty Corp., Inc., 16 AD3d 871 [3d Dept 2005]). Indeed, in connection with an earlier fee dispute, the motion court warned that the action had been terminated and any future disputes would require commencement of a plenary action.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 28, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement, and granted defendant Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP’s cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s motion without consideration of the merits for failure to commence a plenary action pursuant to court order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is the latest in a series of disputes between the parties regarding a stipulation of settlement that was so-ordered by Supreme Court in May 2006. The instant motion by plaintiff to enforce the stipulation of settlement was correctly dismissed, because the stipulation contained an express and unconditional stipulation of discontinuance of the action, which was sufficient to terminate the action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51 [1979]; Salvador v Town of Lake George Zoning Bd., 130 AD3d 1334 [3d Dept 2015]; DiBella v Martz, 58 AD3d 935 [3d Dept 2009]; Cooley v CNYE Realty Corp., Inc., 16 AD3d 871 [3d Dept 2005]). Indeed, in connection with an earlier fee dispute, the motion court warned that the action had been terminated and any future disputes would require commencement of a plenary action.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 567, 28 N.Y.S.3d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotter-v-ripka-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack