From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tauber v. Haecker

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Oct 7, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51485 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)

Opinion

No. 570470/15.

10-07-2015

Larry TAUBER, Michael Tauber and Florence Goldsmith, Petitioners–Landlords–Respondents, v. Randal HAECKER, Respondent–Tenant–Appellant.


Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered October 3, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and matter remanded to Civil Court for a hearing to assess the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by tenant.

The record evidence establishes that the parties entered into a binding agreement to settle the underlying owner occupancy proceeding. The emails exchanged between counsel set forth all the essential terms of the agreement, and indicated that a stipulation would follow. A further email exchange between counsel set forth their agreement regarding the language of the written stipulation. Landlords' attorney then forwarded the agreed upon written stipulation to tenant's attorney; both tenant and his attorney signed the stipulation; tenant's counsel also executed a stipulation discontinuing a Housing Part proceeding previously commenced by tenant, as required by paragraph 13 of the settlement agreement; and both the settlement stipulation and stipulation of discontinuance were then returned to landlord's counsel. Although landlords and their counsel never signed the stipulation, and thereafter attempted to revoke the agreement, the record demonstrates that both parties intended to be bound by the agreement, and it is therefore enforceable (see Options Group, Inc. v. Vyas, 91 AD3d 446, 447 2012; Kowalchuk v. Stroup, 61 AD3d 118, 125 2009 ). In this regard, we note that neither the written stipulation nor the parties email exchange indicated an intent not to be bound until an agreement was executed by both parties (id. at 124).

Landlords' attorney had actual authority to settle the case, and even if, arguendo, counsel lacked actual authority, there is no evidence that he lacked apparent authority to bind his clients (see 1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 175 A.D.2d 747, 749 1991, citing Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 231 1984 ).

Upon landlords' breach of the settlement agreement, tenant was entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to the attorneys' fees provision contained in paragraph 23 of the settlement agreement.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur.


Summaries of

Tauber v. Haecker

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Oct 7, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51485 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)
Case details for

Tauber v. Haecker

Case Details

Full title:Larry Tauber, Michael Tauber and Florence Goldsmith…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Date published: Oct 7, 2015

Citations

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51485 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)
26 N.Y.S.3d 727
2015 WL 5827731