From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlisle v. Drogan

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 1, 2000
94 Civ. 2945 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 1, 2000)

Opinion

94 Civ. 2945 (LLS).

May 1, 2000.


MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT


Plaintiff's application to vacate the order dismissing this action, and to restore it to the trial calendar, is denied.

The relevant correspondence makes clear that the settlement was arrived at through a process of negotiation, during which various figures were discussed and offers were made and rejected, culminating in an agreement to settle the claim for $4,581.00, which is eminently fair compensation for plaintiff's claims based on a very brief stop and interrogation by police. A binding contract was formed, its terms are reasonable, and there is no showing of any fraud or duress, or misunderstanding as to the terms, or other reason for setting it aside. Plaintiff merely states that he has changed his mind. That does not suffice to annul a legal contract, and nothing in this court's allowance of 30 days within which any party can apply to restore the action to the calendar was intended to indicate that agreements reached before or during that period were merely tentative and without legal effect.

Either side can enforce the settlement agreement against the other, and the application to restore the underlying litigation to the calendar is denied.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Carlisle v. Drogan

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 1, 2000
94 Civ. 2945 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 1, 2000)
Case details for

Carlisle v. Drogan

Case Details

Full title:ANTWANE CARLISLE v. DROGAN, et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 1, 2000

Citations

94 Civ. 2945 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. May. 1, 2000)