From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dankner v. Furness, Withy Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 30, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

January 30, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, MARIO DI PIRRO, J.

Joseph F. Hanley, Jr., and Walter X. Connor for appellant.

William Biren for respondents.


The record discloses sufficient evidence indicating that defendant's counsel had no authorization to settle this case. An attorney cannot settle a suit and conclude his client in relation to the subject matter of the litigation without the consent of his client ( Countryman v. Breen, 241 App. Div. 392, affd. 268 N.Y. 643). The court below had no authority to direct the entry of judgment upon the oral stipulation of the attorney, in view of the denial by the defendant that it acquiesced in the settlement ( Sherman Sons v. Princess Shirt Waist Mfg. Co., 213 App. Div. 140).

The judgment and order should be reversed, without costs, and case restored to the calendar for trial for February 17, 1958.

HECHT, J.P., AURELIO and TILZER, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Dankner v. Furness, Withy Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 30, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Dankner v. Furness, Withy Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROSLYN DANKNER et al., Respondents, v. FURNESS, WITHY CO., LTD., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 30, 1958

Citations

11 Misc. 2d 487 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
172 N.Y.S.2d 624