United States Surgical Corp. v. Pignataro
This text of 157 A.D.2d 547 (United States Surgical Corp. v. Pignataro) 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.
Opinion
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.), entered August 25, 1988, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s cross motion seeking to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to CPLR 2104, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Respondent-appellant’s assertion of an oral settlement made over the telephone on February 12, 1988 is inadequate to constitute a binding agreement under CPLR 2104 as the purported agreement was not made in open court, subscribed [548]*548by the party to be bound or his attorney, or reduced to the form of an order and entered (Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1). Moreover, his claim of a binding agreement on the basis of petitioner’s March 2, 1988 written communication is also insufficient since the substantive terms thereof were to take effect only upon execution of the agreement, and the only signed writing was the attached cover letter which clearly characterized the substantive term as "a draft of a proposed settlement agreement” (Brause v Goldman, 10 AD2d 328, affd 9 NY2d 620). We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
157 A.D.2d 547, 549 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-surgical-corp-v-pignataro-nyappdiv-1990.