Opinion
April 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department (Riccobono, J.P., Miller and McCooe, JJ.).
Civil Court properly found that the law firm's attorney and appellant's partners who appeared in court had actual and/or apparent authority to stipulate that appellant would pay his share of the firm's outstanding rent, and that appellant in any event ratified the settlement by his conduct and acquiescence (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224). The Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]) provides no defense because the stipulation was entered into in open court, and also because the stipulation gave appellant a direct, immediate benefit in the form of the landlord allowing the firm to temporarily remain in possession of the premises and foregoing immediate entry of judgment (see, 61 N.Y. Jur 2d, Statute of Frauds, §§ 17, 51). We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.