12 Cited authorities

Ackermann v. United States
340 U.S. 193 (1950) Cited 1,586 times
Holding that petitioners were not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) when they made a "free, calculated, deliberate choic[e]" not to appeal
Nemaizer v. Baker
793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 1,337 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was an adjudication on the merits that barred further federal court proceedings
Powell v. Omnicom
497 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 239 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding a settlement agreement entered into on the record in open court is enforceable, even if never reduced to writing
Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp.
777 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 385 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the complexity of a transaction dictates that the agreement be "committed to writing prior to becoming effective"
Andrulonis v. U.S.
26 F.3d 1224 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 147 times
Holding federal impleader rule permits defendant to implead a joint tortfeasor for contribution before the right to contribution accrues because third party may be liable to defendant for share of plaintiff's primary judgment
Monaghan v. SZS 33 Associates, L.P.
73 F.3d 1276 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 87 times
Holding that indemnification is not available under New York law to party who is itself partially at fault or is alleged to have himself violated the same duty to the underlying plaintiff
Williamson v. Delsener
59 A.D.3d 291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 56 times
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.
Kozlowski v. Coughlin
871 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 70 times
Holding that a consent decree must "spring from and serve to resolve the remaining dispute"
Figueroa v. City of New York
05 Civ. 9594 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2011) Cited 7 times
05 Civ. 9594 (JGK). February 1, 2011 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN KOELTL, District Judge The defendants move to enforce a settlement reached by the parties during settlement negotiations with the plaintiff's former attorney, Linda Cronin. The plaintiff, who now appears pro se, objects to enforcement of the agreement on the grounds that (1) she was allgedely induced to enter into it under conditions constituting economic duress; (2) she did not validly confer authority on Ms. Cronin to settle
Lee v. Hospital for Special Surgery
09 Civ. 1117 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2009) Cited 7 times
09 Civ. 1117 (LAK). August 10, 2009 Derek T. Smith, AKIN SMITH, LLC, Attorney for Plaintiff. David H. Diamond, Gershon R, Smith, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Attorneys for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge This employment discrimination action is before the Court on defendant's motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement. Facts The facts are straightforward. Following the commencement of the action, the parties agreed to mediation before Joseph D. Garrison, Esq. Following a
Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Cited 53,572 times 146 Legal Analyses
Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

Lyman v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that petitioners were not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) when they made a "free, calculated, deliberate choic[e]" not to appeal

Holding that a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was an adjudication on the merits that barred further federal court proceedings

Holding a settlement agreement entered into on the record in open court is enforceable, even if never reduced to writing

Holding that the complexity of a transaction dictates that the agreement be "committed to writing prior to becoming effective"

Holding federal impleader rule permits defendant to implead a joint tortfeasor for contribution before the right to contribution accrues because third party may be liable to defendant for share of plaintiff's primary judgment

Holding that indemnification is not available under New York law to party who is itself partially at fault or is alleged to have himself violated the same duty to the underlying plaintiff

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.

Holding that a consent decree must "spring from and serve to resolve the remaining dispute"

Granting relief from the operation of a judgment