Legal Opinion
In re the Town of Oyster Bay
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 10, 1966PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHoward T. Hogan, J.
The petitioner in this proceeding urges that a purported settlement agreement is a bar to a decision on the merits. This court does not sustain this position.
The alleged stipulation of settlement was never offered into evidence. The court did receive into evidence a claim voucher which presented a claim to the town highway account a notarized request for $3,300 as 1 ‘ Payment in settlement of all claims arising out of the condemnation ’ ’.
This claim voucher and the stipulation were forwarded to the Town Attorney with a letter dated June 2,1961, stating that such forwarding was without…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Van Iderstine Co., Inc. v. Barnet L. Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Pfleiderer v. De VeauxNew York Supreme Court · 1956
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mascaro v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1987
- Killip Laundering Co. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- In re the City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Kuehl v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1966
- Mascaro v. DavisUtah Supreme Court · 1987