Opinion
March 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).
Our decision on the prior appeal ( 190 A.D.2d 518) did not, as plaintiff argues, implicitly find the consent requirement to be a condition precedent to an allocation of the settlement. On the contrary, in denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, we necessarily decided that defendants might not be obligated to return plaintiff's entire deposit, but may be entitled to apply some part of the deposit toward the settlement, which is to say that plaintiff is required to participate in the allocation process.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.