Elizabeth DI Russo Et Al. v. David W. Grant

Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 15, 1966, reversed with $10 costs and disbursements, plaintiffs' motion to vacate settlement and to restore case to the calendar denied, and settlement reinstated. The order appealed from granted a motion by plaintiffs to restore a negligence action to the Trial Calendar about nine months after the action had been marked ""settled"" at a pretrial conference before a Justice of the court. The affidavit in support of the motion asserted only that the plaintiffs ""absolutely refused to accept"" the amount agreed upon by their attorney. Plaintiffs did not appear at the negotiations in person, but through said attorney who, by his appearance, impliedly acknowledged his authority to bind his clients (Rules of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rule 3, subd. [ d ] ). There is no claim the attorney made it known that his authority to settle was limited to any amount (see Accarino v. Hirsch, 6 A.D.2d 795; Rosen v. Grand, 6 A.D.2d 799). Under the circumstances, the motion to restore should have been denied; otherwise, our pretrial procedure, which has done so much to alleviate the backlog and delay associated with negligence actions, is doomed to failure (see Sacco v. Polser, 9 Misc. 2d 211; Savas v. Stern, 29 Misc. 2d 529). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur. [ 51 Misc. 2d 756. ]