Tacktill v. Ashman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tacktill v. Ashman

203 A.D.2d 70, 612 N.Y.S.2d 836

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered May 7, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, and denied defendants’ cross motions to enforce a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Inasmuch as it appears that throughout the conference at which the purported settlement was reached, plaintiffs’ attorney maintained that he was unable to contact his clients and confirm their consent thereto, it cannot be said that the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the settlement (cf., Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231-232). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered May 7, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, and denied defendants’ cross motions to enforce a stipulation of settlement, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Inasmuch as it appears that throughout the conference at which the purported settlement was reached, plaintiffs’ attorney maintained that he was unable to contact his clients and confirm their consent thereto, it cannot be said that the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the settlement (cf., Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231-232). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Tacktill v. Ashman, 203 A.D.2d 70, 612 N.Y.S.2d 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 70 (Tacktill v. Ashman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related