Dudick v. Gulyas
Decision Date | 05 February 2004 |
Docket Number | 94554. |
Citation | 4 A.D.3d 604,770 N.Y.S.2d 924,2004 NY Slip Op 00570 |
Parties | MICHAEL G. DUDICK, Appellant, v. JOSEPH S. GULYAS, Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered December 4, 2002 in Saratoga County, which denied plaintiff's application for a second amended judgment.
Following plaintiff's 1997 commencement of an action for malicious prosecution against defendant, both parties consented to the terms of a stipulation of settlement. The stenographically recorded stipulation, which was made in open court with both parties and their counsel present, provided in relevant part: Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $40,000 following defendant's failure to make the first required payment of $15,000 by December 31, 2001. An amended judgment correcting the caption was also filed. When defendant failed to make the payment due by June 30, 2002, plaintiff made an application for a second amended judgment in the amount of $51,374.09, representing both the $40,000 and the $20,000 judgments, plus interest, less the $10,000 payment defendant made after his initial default. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's application by letter dated November 19, 2002 and interpreted the stipulation as entitling plaintiff to only one judgment for $40,000. Plaintiff appeals.
We reverse. At the outset, we find that Supreme Court's letter decision has been properly reduced to an order and, thus, may be appealed by plaintiff (see CPLR 5512 [a]; cf. O'Fennell Corp. v O'Fennell's of Pine Hill, 188 AD2d 981, 982 [1992]). Turning to the merits, we note that our task is to interpret the disputed language of the stipulation (see Kunker v Isle Harbour Estates, 292 AD2d 679 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 605 [2002]; Mayefsky v Mayefsky, 184 AD2d 954, 955 [1992], appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 924 [1992]). "Stipulations of settlement are essentially contracts . . . [that] should be enforced in accordance with their terms" (Serna v Pergament Distribs., 182 AD2d 985, 986 [1992], lv dismissed 80 NY2d 893 [1992] [citations omitted]). Where a stipulation is properly placed on the record in open court and its terms are clear and unambiguous, "the parties' intent is to be gleaned from the language of the agreement and whatever may be reasonably implied therefrom" (H.K.S. Hunt Club v Town of Claverack, 222 AD2d 769, 769 [1995], lv denied 89 NY2d 804 [1996]; see Corrigan v Breen, 241 AD2d 861, 863 [1997]). However, when an ambiguity exists that cannot be resolved without reference to extrinsic evidence, a summary determination is not appropriate (see Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880-881 [1985]).
In this regard, the parties clearly intended that plaintiff would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. White
...intent is to be gleaned from the language of the agreement and whatever may be reasonably implied therefrom' " ( Dudick v. Gulyas, 4 A.D.3d 604, 606, 770 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2004],quoting H.K.S. Hunt Club v. Town of Claverack, 222 A.D.2d at 769, 634 N.Y.S.2d 816; see Raymond Corp. v. National Uni......
-
Mazo v. Mazo
...the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence’ ” (Dudick v. Gulyas, 4 A.D.3d 604, 606, 770 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2004], quoting Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Wesolowski, 33 N.Y.2d 169, 172, 350 N.Y.S.2d 895, 305 N.E.2d 907 [1973......
-
In re National Auto Credit, Inc., C.A. No. 19028-NC; Consolidated (DE 8/3/2004)
...the purposes of bringing an appeal." Yaba v. Roosevelt, 961 F. Supp. 611, 622 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 13. See, e.g., Dudick v. Gulyas, 770 N.Y.S.2d 924, 925 (App. Div. 2004). 14. The New York Order directs that "parties [to the New York Action] to take all reasonable steps necessary to procure......
- In the Matter of Brown, 94488.