Schoenfeld v. Bloomingdale's Department Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoenfeld v. Bloomingdale's Department Stores, Inc.

181 A.D.2d 582, 581 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 582 (Schoenfeld v. Bloomingdale's Department Stores, 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

Schoenfeld v. Bloomingdale's Department Stores, Inc., 181 A.D.2d 582, 581 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about July 15, 1991, which denied plaintiff’s motion to add defendant’s insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as a party-defendant, and to enforce as against it the settlement agreement entered into between the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that she settled the instant action upon a mistake of fact originating with defendants’ counsel, namely that the settlement amount of $7500 would not be subject to general creditor status in the bankruptcy proceedings involving defendant Bloomingdale’s parent company. While this error might provide a basis for vacating the settlement agreement, it was never represented that payment would be made by respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Bloomingdale’s insurer, nor was the settlement made on behalf of Liberty Mutual. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s motion to add Liberty Mutual as a party-defendant and to compel it to pay the settlement was properly denied. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about July 15, 1991, which denied plaintiff’s motion to add defendant’s insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as a party-defendant, and to enforce as against it the settlement agreement entered into between the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that she settled the instant action upon a mistake of fact originating with defendants’ counsel, namely that the settlement amount of $7500 would not be subject to general creditor status in the bankruptcy proceedings involving defendant Bloomingdale’s parent company. While this error might provide a basis for vacating the settlement agreement, it was never represented that payment would be made by respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Bloomingdale’s insurer, nor was the settlement made on behalf of Liberty Mutual. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s motion to add Liberty Mutual as a party-defendant and to compel it to pay the settlement was properly denied. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 582, 581 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoenfeld-v-bloomingdales-department-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack