Summary
finding that a letter did not constitute a settlement agreement because it expressly contemplated additional negotiations
Summary of this case from Aderman v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School DistrictOpinion
January 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.).
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 by the party to be bound or his attorney, or reduced to the form of an order and entered (Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 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 A.D.2d 328, affd 9 N.Y.2d 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.