Helen A. Gardner Et Al. v. Board Education Helen A. Gardner Et Al. v. Board Education

Helen A. Gardner Et Al. v. Board Education

NY.41747; 279 N.Y.S.2d 794; 28 A.D.2d 616 (1967)

    • USD 0.99
    • USD 0.99

Descripción editorial

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, vacating a stipulation of discontinuance in the action. Respondents' former attorney signed a stipulation of discontinuance terminating the action. Respondents assert that the attorney was authorized to do so only if there would be no adverse effect on respondent Helen A. Gardner's continued receipt of workmen's compensation benefits. The respondent further contends since such was not the case, benefits being suspended as soon as the board was apprised of the discontinuance, the discontinuance should be vacated as unauthorized. The sole issue raised here by appellant is that respondent's remedy, if any, was available only by plenary suit and not by summary motion. Such is the general rule on the grounds that there remains no action pending in which the court can assert its power (Manufacturers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Associated Gas & Elec. Co., 176 Misc. 220, 226-227, affd. 262 App. Div. 731, affd. 288 N. Y. 668; Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 247 N. Y. 435, 445-446; Cohen v. Cohen, 4 A.D.2d 880; Bruck v. Contos, 24 Misc. 2d 1093; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3217.05). Cases which would appear to be an exception to this general rule are noted (e.g., Horodeckyi v. Horodniak, 9 A.D.2d 732; Sperb v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 10 N. Y. S. 865, affd. 123 N. Y. 659), especially where stipulations have been entered into in open court (Fasano v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 799; Silver v. Parkdale Bake Shop, 8 A.D.2d 607; Bruder v. Schwartz, 260 App. Div. 1048), but in our opinion, this stipulation, clearly valid and operable on its face, should not have been vacated without a trial and this is additionally true here where the appellant would clearly be unable to refute by affidavit the respondents' allegations as to what transpired with their attorney. Accordingly, the order should be denied without prejudice to respondents bringing a plenary suit for the same relief. Disposition Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to respondents to bring plenary suit.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1967
22 de mayo
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
1
Página
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
63.1
KB

Más libros de Supreme Court of New York

Matter Richard M. Kessel v. Public Service Commission State New York Et Al. Matter Richard M. Kessel v. Public Service Commission State New York Et Al.
1987
Donna K. A. Dicocco v. Capital Area Community Health Plan Donna K. A. Dicocco v. Capital Area Community Health Plan
1988
Robert M. Gabrielli v. Chris Cornazzani Robert M. Gabrielli v. Chris Cornazzani
1988
William J. Kiernan Et Al. v. Gloria Thompson William J. Kiernan Et Al. v. Gloria Thompson
1987
Dennis Pemberton v. Dolphin Development Corporation Et Al. Dennis Pemberton v. Dolphin Development Corporation Et Al.
1987
Robert Jefferds v. Harold W. Ellis Robert Jefferds v. Harold W. Ellis
1987