Summary
In Speken v. Columbia Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 304 A.D.2d 489, 759 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1st Dep't, 2003) plaintiff attempted to vacate a confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement citing public policy concerns.
Summary of this case from Trump v. Mary L. Trump & Simon & Schuster, Inc.Opinion
995
April 29, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 18, 2002, which, in an action to vacate the confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement in an underlying action for medical malpractice, granted defendant hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Pro Se Ralph H. Speken, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.
This is plaintiff's second attempt to vacate the settlement agreement. The first attempt was a motion in the underlying action that raised, among other arguments, the very argument made herein, to wit, that the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement are void as against public policy. In affirming the denial of the motion, this Court stated that no basis was shown for setting aside the stipulation of settlement (Speken v. Columbia Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 278 A.D.2d 154), and thereby rejected all of the arguments that plaintiffs made for doing so, including the public policy argument they reiterate herein (cf. O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357). As the motion court explained, if plaintiffs believed that their public policy argument was overlooked, their remedy was reargument, not a new action. In any event, the settlement agreement, which prohibits plaintiffs from discussing or otherwise disseminating information about the malpractice action or their decedent's care and treatment at defendant hospital, does not offend the public policy against prior restraint of speech (see Trump v. Trump, 179 A.D.2d 201, 205, appeal dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 892, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 760), and we reiterate that no basis is shown for setting aside the settlement.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.