Yoon Pil Kim v. Shull

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yoon Pil Kim v. Shull

90 A.D.2d 482, 454 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18489

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 A.D.2d 482 (Yoon Pil Kim v. Shull) 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

Yoon Pil Kim v. Shull, 90 A.D.2d 482, 454 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which was settled prior to trial, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sacks, J.), dated November 30, 1981, which denied their motion (1) to increase defendant’s insurance coverage pursuant to section 676 of the Insurance Law, and (2) to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The written settlement was definite and complete on its face and, as such, it constituted a valid and binding contract. Accordingly, the settlement could only be set aside by way of a plenary suit (see Raphael v Booth Mem. Hosp., 67 AD2d 702; Kraft v Vassilaros & Sons, 43 AD2d 972; Schweber v Berger, 27 AD2d 840). If plaintiffs wish to attack the validity of the settlement on the basis of mutual mistake, then a plenary suit must be brought in equity so as to try the issue of the circumstances under which the settlement was made. Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which was settled prior to trial, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sacks, J.), dated November 30, 1981, which denied their motion (1) to increase defendant’s insurance coverage pursuant to section 676 of the Insurance Law, and (2) to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The written settlement was definite and complete on its face and, as such, it constituted a valid and binding contract. Accordingly, the settlement could only be set aside by way of a plenary suit (see Raphael v Booth Mem. Hosp., 67 AD2d 702; Kraft v Vassilaros & Sons, 43 AD2d 972; Schweber v Berger, 27 AD2d 840). If plaintiffs wish to attack the validity of the settlement on the basis of mutual mistake, then a plenary suit must be brought in equity so as to try the issue of the circumstances under which the settlement was made. Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 482, 454 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yoon-pil-kim-v-shull-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack