Spisto v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spisto v. Thompson

39 A.D.2d 598, 331 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937

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

DecidedApril 17, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 598 (Spisto v. Thompson) 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

Spisto v. Thompson, 39 A.D.2d 598, 331 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, in which a settlement had been entered into in open court, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1971, which denied his motion to vacate the settlement and restore the action to the Trial Calendar of the Supreme Court. Order reversed in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs; settlement vacated; and action directed to be restored to the Ready Day Calendar for trial. It appears that the plaintiff at no time consented to the settlement entered into by his trial counsel; nor was he or his attorney of record consulted with respect thereto. It further appears that, upon learning of the settlement, the plaintiff objected to it upon the ground that it was inadequate. Under such circumstances, a party is not bound by a settlement stipulation entered into by his trial counsel. (Bruder v. Schwartz, 260 App. Div. 1048; Silver v. Parkdale Bake Shop, 8 A D 2d 607; Fasano v. City of New York, 22 A D 2d 799). Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, in which a settlement had been entered into in open court, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1971, which denied his motion to vacate the settlement and restore the action to the Trial Calendar of the Supreme Court. Order reversed in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs; settlement vacated; and action directed to be restored to the Ready Day Calendar for trial. It appears that the plaintiff at no time consented to the settlement entered into by his trial counsel; nor was he or his attorney of record consulted with respect thereto. It further appears that, upon learning of the settlement, the plaintiff objected to it upon the ground that it was inadequate. Under such circumstances, a party is not bound by a settlement stipulation entered into by his trial counsel. (Bruder v. Schwartz, 260 App. Div. 1048; Silver v. Parkdale Bake Shop, 8 A D 2d 607; Fasano v. City of New York, 22 A D 2d 799). Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 598, 331 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spisto-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack