Weil, Gotshal & Manges v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills
| Decision Date | 18 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | 4597 |
| Citation | 868 N.Y.S.2d 24,56 A.D.3d 334,2008 NY Slip Op 08998 |
| Parties | WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, Plaintiff, v. FASHION BOUTIQUE OF SHORT HILLS et al., Appellants. McCALLION & ASSOCIATES LLP et al., Nonparty Respondents. (And a Counterclaim Action.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendants' contention that the portion of the settlement agreement requiring them to sign general releases is unenforceable is without merit. Upon application by defendants, then represented by able counsel, the trial court signed an order embodying the terms of a settlement agreement negotiated among all parties, including the McCallion firm and Grobman, defendants' former attorneys in this action. Notwithstanding defendants' unsworn protestations that they never agreed to execute general releases in favor of McCallion and Grobman, they are bound by the terms of the settlement agreement because their counsel had actual and apparent authority both to negotiate the settlement on their behalf and to apply to the court for an order embodying the terms of the settlement agreement (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 [1984]; Davidson v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 819 [2007]). The term requiring defendants to release their former attorneys was negotiated in accordance with Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.31). Moreover, with actual knowledge of the terms of the settlement order, defendants accepted and made use of the substantial benefits accruing to them under the settlement agreement, thereby implicitly ratifying the terms of the agreement (see Friedman v Garey, 8 AD3d 129 [2004]) and barring any subsequent claim of duress (Benjamin Goldstein Prods. v Fish, 198 AD2d 137, 138 [1993]).
Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' request for an adjournment (see Matter of Steven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP
...bind Compex's insurer. DeBellis v. Property Clerk of City of.N.Y., 79 N.Y.2d 49, 59 (1992). See Well, Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, 56 A.D.3d 334, 335 (1st Dep't 2008). Nor does the letter state, as defendants contend, that the insurer, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co......
-
Ford v. Fourth Lenox Terrace
...of the benefits of the stipulation is ratification of its terms and bars him from making such claims. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, 56 A.D.3d 334, 335 "(N.Y.A.D. 1st Dept., 2008) (citations omitted). 3. Since Ford's motion is unsupported by an affidavit from......
-
Pruss v. Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc.
...of New York , 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 [1984] ; see also , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills , 56 A.D.3d 334, 868 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 2008] ; Hawkins v. City of New York , 40 A.D.3d 327, 833 N.Y.S.2d 894 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Matter o......
-
Demetriou v. Wolfer
...State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178 ; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, 56 A.D.3d 334, 335, 868 N.Y.S.2d 24 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff's intent......