Summary
finding that plaintiffs' "employment of counsel to represent them throughout this litigation ... precludes th[e] contention" that their counsel lacked authority to bind them to the settlement at issue
Summary of this case from Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. LJC Dismantling Corp.Opinion
June 28, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
We find unpersuasive the plaintiffs' challenge to the stipulation of settlement entered into in this action. The stipulation was set forth on the record in open court (see, CPLR 2104), and unconditionally provides that the plaintiffs agree to settle the action in return for the payment of $25,000. The credible evidence in the record, including the plain and unequivocal terms of the stipulation itself (see generally, Serna v. Pergament Distribs., 182 A.D.2d 985), flatly refutes the plaintiffs' claim that the individual who negotiated and agreed to the settlement on their behalf (a paralegal employed by their counsel) mistakenly believed that the stipulation was conditioned upon their subsequent approval (see generally, Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v. Bankers Trust Co., 182 A.D.2d 592; Newman v Holland, 178 A.D.2d 866; Matter of Kaplan, 150 A.D.2d 687). Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs' claim of unilateral mistake is both factually and legally unavailing (see, e.g., Living Arts v. Kazuko Hillyer Intl., 166 A.D.2d 284).
Similarly, the plaintiffs' claim that their counsel lacked the authority to bind them to the settlement is not well taken. Indeed, their employment of counsel to represent them throughout this litigation and to appear on their behalf at the conference in question precludes this contention (see, 22 NYCRR 202.12 [b], [c] [4]; 202.26 [e]; Matter of Gruntz, 168 A.D.2d 558; Bauer v. Lygren, 113 A.D.2d 913; Collazo v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 103 A.D.2d 789). In any event, even if counsel did lack actual authority to enter into the stipulation, the record contains ample evidence of counsel's apparent authority to do so (see, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; 1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 175 A.D.2d 747). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to present any valid ground for setting aside the stipulation (see, e.g., Lewis v. Lewis, 183 A.D.2d 875; Popescu v Comoletti, 130 A.D.2d 724). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.