Tacktill v. Ashman

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

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

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

Related

Hallock v. State
474 N.E.2d 1178 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.2d 70, 612 N.Y.S.2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tacktill-v-ashman-nyappdiv-1994.