Legal Opinion
Malvin v. Schwartz
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 16, 1979PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Since the parties had not executed an express stipulation of discontinuance of the action, or entered judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement, the action had not terminated. Thus, the settlement was amenable to enforcement by motion (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). Furthermore, insofar as defendant was relieved from adherence to the letter of the settlement, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see, e.g., Barry v Mutual Life Ins. Co.,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Teitelbaum Holdings, Ltd. v. GoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Barry v. . Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1873
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bank of New York v. ForliniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Mideal Homes Corp. v. L & C Concrete Work, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Dubor Associates v. RichburgAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2015
- Stepping Stones Associates v. SeymourAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2000
- 34 Hillside Ave., LLC v. MateoAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.