Leslie v. Van Vranken
| Decision Date | 08 July 1965 |
| Citation | 24 A.D.2d 658,261 N.Y.S.2d 103 |
| Parties | Peter LESLIE, Appellant, v. Willard VAN VRANKEN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles O. Milham, Albany, for appellant (John W. Tabner, Albany, of counsel).
Carter & Conboy, Albany, for respondent (Dixon S. Welt, Albany, of counsel).
Before GIBSON, P. J., and REYNOLDS, TAYLOR, AULISI and HAMM, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, denying appellant's motion for an order requiring the respondent to accept the release and stipulation of discontinuance submitted to him by appellant's attorney and to pay appellant the sum of $4,000.
On August 5, 1960 appellant was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. In early 1961 an action was commenced and by July a note of issue was filed. Eventually the case was set down for trial on December 17, 1962 but the trial could not proceed when appellant's attorney reported that he could not locate appellant. Settlement negotiations were then conducted between respondent's and appellant' attorneys and a $4,000 figure agreed to pending the receipt of proper releases and stipulations of discontinuance. When these were not forthcoming by May, 1963 respondent moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. This motion was granted unless appellant's attorney produced the proper releases and stipulations by September, 1963. Just prior to this date a release and stipulation of discontinuance, executed not be appellant but by his attorney, together with a copy of a certificate of authorization and retainer were delivered to respondent's attorney. These were rejected and the instant proceeding is to compel their acceptance.
It is clear that as a general rule an attorney, absent special authorization, cannot settle or compromise his client's claim, and thus any such action without the client's subsequent ratification is a nullity and unenforceable (Cox v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 63 N.Y. 414, 419; Rosen v. Grand, 6 A.D.2d 799, 800, 175 N.Y.S.2d 441; 3 N.Y.Jur., Attorney & Client, §§ 33, 34; 30 A.L.R.2d 946). And there is not here a settlement in full (cf. Matter of Cusimano, 174 Misc. 1068, 1071, 22 N.Y.S.2d 677, 680) nor do we find an 'emergency' which would provide and exception to this general rule (3 N.Y.Jur., Attorney & Client, § 34 at page 422). There is present no sudden development which urgently compelled an immediate decision without adequate time or opportunity to consult the client (cf., Alpern v. 55 Cent....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mercury
...case law confirms that an attorney cannot settle a case without the authority of his client. See Leslie v. Van Vranken, 24 A.D.2d 658, 261 N.Y.S.2d 103 (3d Dep't 1965) (compromise made without client authorization is a nullity and unenforceable). From the nature of the attorney-client relat......
-
Hallock v. State
...App.Div. 392, 271 N.Y.S. 744, affd. 268 N.Y. 643, 198 N.E. 536; Spisto v. Thompson, 39 A.D.2d 598, 331 N.Y.S.2d 818; Leslie v. Van Vranken, 24 A.D.2d 658, 261 N.Y.S.2d 103; Mazzella v. American Home Constr. Co., 12 A.D.2d 910, 211 N.Y.S.2d Quartararo unquestionably had authority from plaint......
-
Sperry v. Papastamos
...no authority to enter into the stipulation of damages (see, Slavin v. Polyak, 99 A.D.2d 466, 467, 470 N.Y.S.2d 38; Leslie v. Van Vranken, 24 A.D.2d 658, 261 N.Y.S.2d 103; see generally, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178; Suslow v. Rush, 161 A.D.2......
-
Hallock v. State
...stand. An unauthorized settlement is a nullity and unenforceable and may be set aside on reasonable application (Leslie v. Van Vranken, 24 A.D.2d 658, 261 N.Y.S.2d 103). Plaintiffs moved expeditiously to set aside the settlement. They informed the Power Authority on July 10, 1975 that they ......