Watson v. Alliance II Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Alliance II Associates

73 A.D.3d 668, 900 N.Y.S.2d 871

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

DecidedMay 27, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 668 (Watson v. Alliance II Associates) 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

Watson v. Alliance II Associates, 73 A.D.3d 668, 900 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered March 24, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries that was marked off the calendar as settled, denied plaintiffs motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the settlement vacated, and the case restored to the trial calendar.

The motion to restore should have been granted, since defendant failed to come forward with proof that plaintiffs attorney was authorized to settle the case (see McGuffin v Port of N.Y. Auth., 58 AD2d 793 [1977]). The record does not support the court’s finding that plaintiff should be bound to the settlement (see Mazzella v American Home Constr. Co., 12 AD2d 910 [1961]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered March 24, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries that was marked off the calendar as settled, denied plaintiffs motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the settlement vacated, and the case restored to the trial calendar.

The motion to restore should have been granted, since defendant failed to come forward with proof that plaintiffs attorney was authorized to settle the case (see McGuffin v Port of N.Y. Auth., 58 AD2d 793 [1977]). The record does not support the court’s finding that plaintiff should be bound to the settlement (see Mazzella v American Home Constr. Co., 12 AD2d 910 [1961]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 668, 900 N.Y.S.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-alliance-ii-associates-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack