579 N.Y.S.2d at 400 Defining technical legal terms regarding stipulations and court location9 citing casessettlement agreement enforced where parties agreed in presence of court, though apparently unrecorded by court reporter
- Peters v. Huttel, No. 7:15-cv-09274 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2022).Corp., 579 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (1st Dep’t 1992)).
- Langreich v. Gruenbaum, 775 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).publishedCorp., 180 A.D.2d 493, 493 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (1st Dep’t 1992)).
- Massie v. Metro. Museum of Art, 651 F. Supp. 2d 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).publishedCoip., 180 *98 A.D.2d 493, 493, 579 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (1st Dep’t 1992)).
- Silas v. City of New York, 536 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).published“that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the courtroom itself”
- Alvarez v. City of New York, 146 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).published Corp., 180 A.D.2d 493 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (1st Dep’t 1992); see also Willgerodt, 953 F.Supp. at 560.
- Willgerodt ex rel. Majority Peoples' Fund for the 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 953 F. Supp. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published “is a technical term that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the courtroom itself”
- Eleanor Monaghan, Individually & as Guardian Ad Litem for William Monaghan, an Incompetent v. SZS 33 Assocs., L.P. Delaware Ltd. P'ship, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. The Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey & Port Auth. Tran-Hudson Corp., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. SZS 33 Assocs., L.P. Delaware Ltd. P'ship, Second-Third-Party v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of New York & McLane Sec., Inc., Second-Third-Party, 73 F.3d 1276 (2d Cir. 1996).published(settlement agreement enforced where parties agreed in presence of court, though apparently unrecorded by court reporter)
- Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assocs., L.P., 73 F.3d 1276 (2d Cir. 1996).published(settlement agreement enforced where parties agreed in presence of court, though apparently unrecorded by court reporter)
q1 “is a technical term that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the courtroom itself.”5 citing cases
- Acot v. New York Med. Coll., 99 F. App'x 317 (2d Cir. 2004).unpublished (Open court” within the meaning of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 2104 “is a technical term that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the…)
- Silas v. City of New York, 536 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).publishedThus, the settlement agreement is not enforceable under CPLR 2104 unless it was “made between counsel in open court.” 2 “Open court” is a technical legal term “that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipu…
- Alvarez v. City of New York, 146 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).published Corp., 180 A.D.2d 493 , 579 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (1st Dep’t 1992); see also Willgerodt, 953 F.Supp. at 560.
- Willgerodt ex rel. Majority Peoples' Fund for the 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 953 F. Supp. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).published C.P.L.R. 2104 "is a technical term that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the courtroom itself." Popovic v. New York City Health and Hospit…
579 N.Y.S.2d at 399 open court” requirement of CPLR 2104 satisfied and settlement agreement enforced where, in the presence of the court but unrecorded by court reporter, the parties agreed to settle the matter and the settlement was noted on the court record1 citing case
- Vacco v. Harrah's Operating Co., 661 F. Supp. 2d 186 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).published(open court” requirement of CPLR 2104 satisfied and settlement agreement enforced where, in the presence of the court but unrecorded by court reporter, the parties agreed to settle the matter and the settlement was note…)
At page 493 cited at this page1 citing case
- Diarassouba v. Urban, 71 A.D.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).publishedCorp., 180 AD2d 493, 493 [1992], citing Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d at 4-5 ).
v.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Louis Friedman, J.) entered July 5, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore a matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record reflects that after pre-trial conference, the parties agreed in the presence of the court to settle this personal injury case for $30,000. The court marked the original note of issue to conform with the agreement, and the Clerk entered notice of the settlement in the court’s calendar, and on the Clerk’s return, which information was entered into the court’s computer record system. Having been settled, the case was marked off the calendar. Subsequently, plaintiff’s counsel indicated to the court that his client refused to accede to the settlement.
”[0]pen court” as used in CPLR 2104, is a technical term that refers to the formalities attendant upon documenting the fact of the stipulation and its terms, and not to the particular location of the courtroom itself (see, Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 4-5). There is no indication that plaintiff’s counsel lacked authority to negotiate, and enter into a settlement (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224; Smith v Lefrak Org., 142 AD2d 725, 726). We equate the court’s own documentation and the entry into its computer records of the settlement with the Second Department’s requirement of entry of the settlement into the Clerk’s minute book (see, Deal v Meenan Oil Co., 153 AD2d 665, 666; Collazo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 103 AD2d 789, 790). This Court will give effect to stipulations entered into, and evidenced by, substantial compliance with CPLR 2104 (Golden Arrow Films v Standard Club, 38 AD2d 813). In the present case, despite a client’s subsequent recalcitrance, the parties and the court substantially complied with the statute. We are cognizant of 22 NYCRR 202.26 (f) which requires that a stipulation of settlement agreed upon at a pre-trial conference must be recorded in the court’s minutes. We construe this Rule permissively to deem compliance upon entry in the court’s own records and the Central Clerk’s computer. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.