From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Garey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Summary

holding that an unsigned settlement agreement was nonetheless enforceable where it “was stipulated to by counsel in open court” and “defendant implicitly ratified the settlement by accepting substantial sums under its terms”

Summary of this case from Spectris Inc. v. 1997 Milton B. Hollander Family Trust

Opinion

3933N.

Decided June 17, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered February 9, 2004, which granted plaintiff's motion to enforce the stipulated agreement settling this divorce action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Cohen Lans, LLP, New York (Mara T. Thorpe of counsel), for appellant.

Judd Burstein, New York, for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.


The written settlement agreement, although unsigned by defendant, was stipulated to by counsel in open court and was thus binding on the parties (CPLR 2104; Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; Rubenfeld v. Rubenfeld, 279 A.D.2d 153). Moreover, defendant implicitly ratified the settlement by accepting substantial sums under its terms, and with respect to her reversal of course on the confidentiality provision now at issue, by failing to make formal objection during the months in which various other provisions were being negotiated ( Clark v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 306 A.D.2d 82, 85).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Garey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

holding that an unsigned settlement agreement was nonetheless enforceable where it “was stipulated to by counsel in open court” and “defendant implicitly ratified the settlement by accepting substantial sums under its terms”

Summary of this case from Spectris Inc. v. 1997 Milton B. Hollander Family Trust

In Friedman, the settlement agreement was dictated in open court and thereafter was ratified by accepting substantial sums of money and as such was a valid agreement.

Summary of this case from RJS v. ZAG
Case details for

Friedman v. Garey

Case Details

Full title:DAVID S. FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LISA R. GAREY…

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

Date published: Jun 17, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
779 N.Y.S.2d 44

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Wilson

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the stipulation was not rendered invalid because there was no…

Storette v. Storette

Before: Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Lerner and Sweeny, JJ. Plaintiff's open-court stipulation contained…