Sekuterski v. Evert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sekuterski v. Evert

270 A.D.2d 828, 706 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 828 (Sekuterski v. Evert) 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

Sekuterski v. Evert, 270 A.D.2d 828, 706 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously vacated without costs. Memorandum: The verified answer admitted all the allegations of the verified complaint except those relating to damages. The case was reached for trial, and during a conference telephone call with Supreme Court the parties’ attorneys stipulated both to the truth of allegations 1 through 14 of the complaint and the amount of damages. Defendants’ attorney then moved for judgment dismissing the complaint based on sovereign immunity and the court reserved decision. In a subsequent letter to the court plaintiffs’ attorney asserted that the stipulation included certain events on May 20, 1991 that were not mentioned in the [829]*829complaint, and that those events created a special relationship between plaintiffs and defendant Village of Lancaster that negated sovereign immunity. Defendants objected, stating that events of May 20th were outside the scope of the stipulation. The court in its decision acknowledged that the stipulation did not comply with CPLR 2104 but nevertheless relied on the version of the stipulation urged by plaintiffs. The court decided the matter in favor of plaintiffs, finding determinative the events that plaintiffs allege occurred on May 20th. The court later settled the record to include the post-stipulation letters.

We agree with defendants that the stipulation was invalid under CPLR 2104. Without an enforceable stipulation or proof of facts based on admissible evidence, appellate review is impossible. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Damages.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ. '

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

—Judgment unanimously vacated without costs. Memorandum: The verified answer admitted all the allegations of the verified complaint except those relating to damages. The case was reached for trial, and during a conference telephone call with Supreme Court the parties’ attorneys stipulated both to the truth of allegations 1 through 14 of the complaint and the amount of damages. Defendants’ attorney then moved for judgment dismissing the complaint based on sovereign immunity and the court reserved decision. In a subsequent letter to the court plaintiffs’ attorney asserted that the stipulation included certain events on May 20, 1991 that were not mentioned in the [829]*829complaint, and that those events created a special relationship between plaintiffs and defendant Village of Lancaster that negated sovereign immunity. Defendants objected, stating that events of May 20th were outside the scope of the stipulation. The court in its decision acknowledged that the stipulation did not comply with CPLR 2104 but nevertheless relied on the version of the stipulation urged by plaintiffs. The court decided the matter in favor of plaintiffs, finding determinative the events that plaintiffs allege occurred on May 20th. The court later settled the record to include the post-stipulation letters.

We agree with defendants that the stipulation was invalid under CPLR 2104. Without an enforceable stipulation or proof of facts based on admissible evidence, appellate review is impossible. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Damages.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 828, 706 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sekuterski-v-evert-nyappdiv-2000.