Round v. Monk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Round v. Monk

100 A.D.2d 542, 473 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17515

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 542 (Round v. Monk) 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

Round v. Monk, 100 A.D.2d 542, 473 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to nullify and declare void certain letters of resignation submitted by petitioner Estella R. Round to appellants and to enjoin appellants from terminating her employment as a professional tenured teacher, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), dated January 5, 1983, which granted petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order of settlement of the same court entered June 9, 1982, and restored this proceeding to the Trial Calendar. j| Order reversed, on the law, without- costs or disbursements, motion denied and order entered June 9, 1982 reinstated. $ The written settlement, on its face, is definite and complete, and, as such, constitutes a valid and binding contract. Once an order of settlement is entered, the litigation is terminated; a settlement made on the record can be set aside only by a plenary action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51; Weiner v Lochner, 80 AD2d 727; see, also, Yoon Pil Kim v Shull, 90 AD2d 482). Accordingly, the granting of petitioner’s motion to vacate the order of settlement and restore this proceeding to the Trial Calendar was improper. If petitioner wishes to attack the validity of the settlement (e.g., on the basis of failure of purpose or mutual mistake), then a plenary suit must be brought in equity so as to try the issue of the circumstances under which this settlement was made (see Yoon Pil Kim v Shull, supra). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur,

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

In a proceeding to nullify and declare void certain letters of resignation submitted by petitioner Estella R. Round to appellants and to enjoin appellants from terminating her employment as a professional tenured teacher, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), dated January 5, 1983, which granted petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order of settlement of the same court entered June 9, 1982, and restored this proceeding to the Trial Calendar. j| Order reversed, on the law, without- costs or disbursements, motion denied and order entered June 9, 1982 reinstated. $ The written settlement, on its face, is definite and complete, and, as such, constitutes a valid and binding contract. Once an order of settlement is entered, the litigation is terminated; a settlement made on the record can be set aside only by a plenary action (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51; Weiner v Lochner, 80 AD2d 727; see, also, Yoon Pil Kim v Shull, 90 AD2d 482). Accordingly, the granting of petitioner’s motion to vacate the order of settlement and restore this proceeding to the Trial Calendar was improper. If petitioner wishes to attack the validity of the settlement (e.g., on the basis of failure of purpose or mutual mistake), then a plenary suit must be brought in equity so as to try the issue of the circumstances under which this settlement was made (see Yoon Pil Kim v Shull, supra). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 542, 473 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/round-v-monk-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack