Opinion
October 18, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the plaintiff waived any objection to the alleged lack of proper notice of the defendant's pro se application to vacate an order entered upon her default, by failing to raise the issue before the Supreme Court and by defending such application on the merits (see, Glanzman v. Fischman, 183 A.D.2d 748; Todd v Gull Contr. Co., 22 A.D.2d 904; Miot v. JoCarl Realty Corp., 20 A.D.2d 664). Further, we find no reason to disturb the court's implicit finding that plaintiff's attorney had the authority to bind his client to the stipulation discontinuing the present action (see, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; cf., Rivera v. Triple M. Roofing Corp., 116 A.D.2d 561).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, 22 NYCRR 202.3 [c] [5]). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.