Whipple Bros. v. Andrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whipple Bros. v. Andrew

37 A.D.2d 677, 322 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679

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

DecidedJune 28, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 677 (Whipple Bros. v. Andrew) 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

Whipple Bros. v. Andrew, 37 A.D.2d 677, 322 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chemung County, entered December 9, 1970, which denied a motion by defendants to be relieved from the terms of a stipulation of settlement of the above-entitled action, and to restore the ease to the trial calendar in Chemung County. This is an action by plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the lumber business, to recover $21,097.86 for goods sold and delivered to the defendants. In the course of trial, the trial court was advised by the attorneys for the parties that a settlement in the amount of $13,250 had been reached. Thereupon, the court, the stenographer, the attorneys for both sides, and appellant, Robert L. Andrew, retired to the court’s chambers, where the stipulation was placed on the record. Since the appellants have failed to establish facts which would justify setting aside the stipulation of settlement, the trial court’s refusal to grant the motion was a proper exercise of its discretion. Appellant Robert L. Andrew, an attorney, was present when the stipulation was placed on record, and both appellants were in court when the jury was advised that the case had been settled. At no time did they indicate disagreement with the stipulation. Furthermore, appellants offered no proof of fraud or overreaching on the part of the respondent. Order affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chemung County, entered December 9, 1970, which denied a motion by defendants to be relieved from the terms of a stipulation of settlement of the above-entitled action, and to restore the ease to the trial calendar in Chemung County. This is an action by plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the lumber business, to recover $21,097.86 for goods sold and delivered to the defendants. In the course of trial, the trial court was advised by the attorneys for the parties that a settlement in the amount of $13,250 had been reached. Thereupon, the court, the stenographer, the attorneys for both sides, and appellant, Robert L. Andrew, retired to the court’s chambers, where the stipulation was placed on the record. Since the appellants have failed to establish facts which would justify setting aside the stipulation of settlement, the trial court’s refusal to grant the motion was a proper exercise of its discretion. Appellant Robert L. Andrew, an attorney, was present when the stipulation was placed on record, and both appellants were in court when the jury was advised that the case had been settled. At no time did they indicate disagreement with the stipulation. Furthermore, appellants offered no proof of fraud or overreaching on the part of the respondent. Order affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 677, 322 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whipple-bros-v-andrew-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack