From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zambrana v. Memnon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1992
181 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 9, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

On May 24, 1989, pursuant to a pre-trial settlement conference initiated by the court, this action was purportedly settled for $200,000, the defendant Marie Memnon agreeing to pay to the plaintiffs $50,000 and the remaining defendants to pay them $150,000.

The only record of the settlement was a notation made by the court in its personal file which read "SBT ($200,000) Disposed"; "SBT" apparently meaning "settled before trial."

By notice of motion dated May 17, 1990, the plaintiffs moved to vacate the settlement and to restore the matter to the trial calendar. The court granted the motion, finding that pursuant to CPLR 2104 the oral stipulation was unenforceable.

On appeal the defendants contend that the court erred. We disagree.

"Although stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts (see Matter of Galasso, 35 N.Y.2d 319), an oral stipulation will not be enforced unless its terms are definite, and it is made in 'open court' (CPLR 2104; see Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1)" (Collazo v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 103 A.D.2d 789, 790). In the instant case, the notation made by the court did not constitute a sufficient or adequate memorialization of the terms of the settlement to satisfy the "open court" requirement of CPLR 2104. Accordingly, the court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zambrana v. Memnon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1992
181 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Zambrana v. Memnon

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA ZAMBRANA et al., Respondents, v. MARIE A.G. MEMNON et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 83

Citing Cases

Phillips v. Pamper Decorating Service

We agree with the appellant that there is insufficient evidence that a final settlement agreement was ever…

Matter of Janis

The Surrogate correctly held that there is no open court settlement agreement within the meaning of CPLR…