From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barry v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1986
121 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

June 23, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).


Order modified, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the cross motion insofar as it was made by the plaintiff. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing with respect to the validity of the settlement.

On May 3, 1985, at Trial Term, Part 1, in the absence of the plaintiff, this case was marked settled for the sum of $25,000, subject to the plaintiff's approval. This settlement was not placed on the record. Thereafter, the plaintiff allegedly executed a general release and other settlement papers, and a check in the sum of $25,000 made payable jointly to plaintiff and counsel was received. The plaintiff has declined to indorse the settlement draft, has attempted to assign his personal injury cause of action to one Ernest H. Fidellow, and asserts that he did not consent to the settlement.

Counsel for the plaintiff maintains that the plaintiff consented to the settlement and signed a general release, affidavit of no assistance and letter of acceptance of the settlement offer. The plaintiff contends that he never agreed to settle the case for $25,000 and was misled into signing any documents. These indispensable documents have not been included in the record, however, and under the circumstances of this case, a hearing should be held on the issues of (1) whether the plaintiff consented to this settlement, and (2) the validity of the general release executed by the plaintiff (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224; Pimpinello v. Swift Co., 253 N.Y. 159; Rivera v. Triple M. Roofing Corp., 116 A.D.2d 561).

We note that an assignment is included in the record, executed prior to the alleged settlement, which purports to assign to the plaintiff's assignee "all right, title and interest" to the plaintiff's claim and to "prosecute such claim" and receive any proceeds of such claim. Such an assignment is void as a matter of law (see, General Obligations Law § 13-101). The purported assignment of the plaintiff's personal injury claim is null and void, and his purported assignee cannot participate in any manner in the prosecution of this action. Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barry v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1986
121 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Barry v. New York City Transit Authority

Case Details

Full title:ALTON P. BARRY, Respondent-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Sierra v. Garcia

The court relied on General Obligations Law § 13-101 (1), which proscribes transfer of "[a]ny claim or demand…

Allen v. Leon D. Dematteis Constr. Corp.

Moreover, a plaintiff may freely assign a settling party the right to receive the proceeds of a personal…