From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Nicastro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1989
150 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 8, 1989

Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (Brown, S.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs payable by the estate, the order dated July 9, 1987 is vacated, the claim of the attorneys for the appellants for compensation out of the attorneys' compensation fund established by the stipulation of settlement is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County, for reconsideration of the amounts to be awarded to the attorneys for the respective parties from the fund in question.

Inasmuch as the order appealed from reinstated the order which the trial court had previously vacated, sua sponte, the matter is properly before this court. After approximately 10 years of litigation the parties to this wrongful death action reached a structured settlement by stipulation in open court with all parties present and represented by counsel. The stipulation provided, inter alia, that $200,000 of the total sum of $600,000 was "to pay attorney's liens and fees as fixed by this court including disbursements" to "attorneys here" and "the way * * * the manner and the amount to be paid" was to be determined by the Surrogate. It specifically excluded the payment of counsel fees from the compensation fund to Sussman Gottlieb, who had previously represented Dorothy Nicastro as an individual, declaring that she would pay them out of her distribution.

The law favors stipulations of settlement, particularly those, as here, read into the record in open court with all parties represented by counsel, and will not lightly set them aside absent a cause such as is sufficient to invalidate a contract, i.e., fraud, collusion, mistake or accident (Freidus v Eisenberg, 71 N.Y.2d 981, 982; Schieck v Schieck, 138 A.D.2d 691; Daniels v Banks, 136 A.D.2d 675, 676; Matter of Mahnk, 138 A.D.2d 939). Further, although upon review of the estate's representative's discretion and judgment in agreeing to a compromise settlement, the Surrogate is empowered to reject or accept it in its entirety, he may not substitute his own judgment (Matter of Camarda, 133 A.D.2d 114; Matter of Leopold, 259 N.Y. 274). In view of the clear language of the stipulation at bar, it was error for the trial court to deny a distribution of a fair and reasonable counsel fee to the plaintiffs' attorney from the compensation fund and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate's Court for an order in compliance herewith. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Nicastro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1989
150 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Nicastro

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of ALEXANDER NICASTRO, Deceased. DOROTHY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
541 N.Y.S.2d 63

Citing Cases

Pollicina v. Misericordia Ctr.

As to that determination, it is the Supreme Court, with its superior familiarity with the merits and the…

Matter of Flournoy v. Porter

It is well settled that the law favors stipulations of settlement, particularly those which, as here, are…