From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williamson v. Delsener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 2009
59 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Summary

In Williamson v. Delsener, 59 A.D.3d 291 [1st Dept., 2009], the First Department held that e-mails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end, constituted signed writings within the meaning of the statute of frauds.

Summary of this case from G2 Entm't LLC v. Tractenberg & Co.

Opinion

February 24, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 13, 2007, to the extent it denied plaintiffs motion for judgment on a negotiated settlement, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and plaintiff awarded against defendant Delsener the principal amount of $84,868.20, plus statutory interest from December 12, 2006. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.


The e-mails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end, constitute signed writings (CPLR 2104) within the meaning of the statute of frauds ( see Stevens v Publicis S.A., 50 AD3d 253, 255-256, lv dismissed 10 NY3d 930), and entitle plaintiff to judgment (CPLR 5003-a [e]). The agreement to settle at 60% of the amount demanded was sufficiently clear and concrete to constitute an enforceable contract ( see Hostcentric Tech., Inc. v Republic Thunderbolt, LLC, 2005 WL 1377853, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 11130 [SD NY 2005]). Delsener's subsequent refusal to execute form releases and a stipulation of discontinuance did not invalidate the agreement ( see Wronka v GEM Community Mgt., 49 AD3d 869; Cole v Macklowe, 40 AD3d 396).

The e-mail communications indicate that Delsener was aware of and consented to the settlement; the record contains no indication to the contrary, or that counsel was without authority to enter into the settlement ( see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; cf. Katzen v Twin Pines Fuel Corp., 16 AD3d 133). To the contrary, the record supports only the conclusion that counsel at least had apparent authority.

We find no merit to Delsener's argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 33632(U).]


Summaries of

Williamson v. Delsener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 2009
59 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

In Williamson v. Delsener, 59 A.D.3d 291 [1st Dept., 2009], the First Department held that e-mails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end, constituted signed writings within the meaning of the statute of frauds.

Summary of this case from G2 Entm't LLC v. Tractenberg & Co.
Case details for

Williamson v. Delsener

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ESQ., as Successor Liquidating Trustee of LIPPER…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2009

Citations

59 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
874 N.Y.S.2d 41

Citing Cases

Maria Mcbride Prods., Inc. v. Badger

This Court's conclusion is consistent with the appellate authority on the subject. In Williamson v. Delsener,…

Landau, P.C. v. Oliveri & Schwartz, P.C.

Since no admissible evidence indicates that she, Povman, or anyone else conveyed to anyone at the mediation…