Opinion
06-17-2016
In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Ernest Earl COWELL, Deceased. Ernest Cowell, Former Administrator of the Estate of Ernest Earl Cowell, Deceased, Appellant; Terri Ross, Allegany County Treasurer, Public Administrator, Gloria Louk, et al., Respondents.
Gerald J. Vella, Springville, for Appellant. Alan L. Spears, Allegany, for Respondents Gloria Louk, William H. Cowell, Alfred Cowell, Norman Cowell, Vivian Carpenter, Darlene Hall, Diane Morrison, Kathy White, Charles Gee and Patricia Libka.
Gerald J. Vella, Springville, for Appellant.
Alan L. Spears, Allegany, for Respondents Gloria Louk, William H. Cowell, Alfred Cowell, Norman Cowell, Vivian Carpenter, Darlene Hall, Diane Morrison, Kathy White, Charles Gee and Patricia Libka.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: Ernest Cowell (appellant), the former administrator and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of Ernest Earl Cowell (decedent), appeals from an order that denied his motion to confirm his bid to purchase a certain oil and gas lease owned by the estate. The bidding process was purportedly settled by stipulation of settlement, the terms of which were placed on the record before Surrogate's Court. Appellant tendered a bid to purchase the lease pursuant to his understanding of the stipulation. The Surrogate, however, held that there was no enforceable stipulation. We affirm.
Contrary to appellant's contention, the stipulation of settlement placed on the record in open court did not bind the parties. First, the stipulation of settlement did not meet the requirement of being “definite and complete” inasmuch as some of its material terms were not finalized in open court (Town of Warwick v. Black Bear Campgrounds, 95 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 943 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; see Diarassouba v. Urban, 71 A.D.3d 51, 55–56, 892 N.Y.S.2d 410, lv. dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 741, 906 N.Y.S.2d 803, 933 N.E.2d 201 ). Second, and perhaps more important, the “[stipulation of] settlement was expressly conditioned” on counsel for all parties obtaining client approval in writing (Rivera v. Triple M. Roofing Corp., 116 A.D.2d 561, 561, 497 N.Y.S.2d 416 ; see Matter of Brooks v. Brooks, 255 A.D.2d 382, 382, 679 N.Y.S.2d 697 ; Batties v. Solis, 171 A.D.2d 529, 530, 567 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; cf. Bella Vista Dev. Corp. v. Estate of Birnbaum, 85 A.D.2d 891, 891–892, 446 N.Y.S.2d 753, lv. dismissed 55 N.Y.2d 608, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 434 N.E.2d 722, 55 N.Y.2d 1038). The record establishes, however, that appellant himself never fulfilled that condition by giving his approval in writing.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.