From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suslow v. Rush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 3, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Harold L. Wood, J.).


Authority of an attorney to enter into settlement negotiations does not necessarily constitute authority to enter into a binding settlement under CPLR 2104, unless that settlement is entered into in open court. (See, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; Popescu v. Comoletti, 130 A.D.2d 724.) A question as to such authorization is an appropriate subject for an evidentiary hearing. (Slavin v. Polyak, 99 A.D.2d 466.) In light of the fact that the court has already ordered a hearing on the question of compliance with the stipulation of settlement, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how he will be prejudiced by expansion of the hearing agenda to include the question of whether defendants' prior attorney was authorized to enter into a binding agreement on their behalf, which agreement is purportedly represented by the letter of June 2, 1988 exchanged between attorneys.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Suslow v. Rush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Suslow v. Rush

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE SUSLOW, Appellant, v. LAURENCE M. RUSH et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 3, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Stoll v. Port Authority of N Y New Jersey

Taylor's affidavit was offered in support of defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation of settlement.…

Sperry v. Papastamos

The court properly denied defendant's motion to renew, but erred in denying his motion to vacate the…