In the present case, the husband proved that the lawyer who represented him in the divorce proceedings was chosen and paid by the wife and that the lawyer informed the husband that he could only request an amendment to a provision of the marriage agreement. In addition, the wife made significant changes to the agreement after it was signed by the husband. Thus, the court found that the Court of First Instance had rightly rejected the wife`s request to dismiss the husband`s claims. The Westchester County Supreme Court upheld the wife`s request to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that the husband had not made a valid claim. It found that Article 236B(3) was directly applicable only to agreements concluded outside the dispute, such as . B a matrimonial contract. She cited Rio v. Rio, a 2013 decision of the Appeal Division, Second Division, in which it was stated that the lack of recognition of the type described in § 236 (B) (3) does not nullify an SOS. The court also found that, even though the SOS was defective, the husband ratified it and waived any objection by complying with his conditions from April 2014 to March 2015. In an application for damages for personal injury, the defendant is appealing an order of the Supreme Court of Queens County (Darrell L. Gavrin, J.) dated September 6, 2017. The order, after a hearing, dismissed the defendant`s application for enforcement of a settlement agreement and granted the plaintiff`s incidental request to set aside the settlement agreement.
In this context, in In re Hassine, the New York County Substitute Court considered an application by former counsel for the removal of two pre-trial provisions – a joint provision on undisputed facts and a joint statement of issues (the “provisions”) – filed by former counsel for the moving assistants. The application was made by the only remaining beneficiaries of the estate during the contested consolidated proceedings for settling the account of the executor of the will and for the revocation of the executor of the will and designating the remaining beneficiaries as co-executors of the testator`s estate. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant`s request to enforce the settlement agreement and dismissed the plaintiff`s request for follow-up to have the settlement agreement set aside. The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she fell in front of a defendant`s store and fell over a pipe. The plaintiff then brought an action for compensation for bodily injury. While the lawsuit was ongoing, counsel for both parties participated in the mediation and signed an agreement settling the case in the amount of $150,000 (hereinafter the settlement agreement). The defendant sent the final documents to the plaintiff`s lawyer for enforcement and return, and where the plaintiff failed to execute and return the documents, the defendant requested that the settlement agreement be enforced. The plaintiff, through a new lawyer, sought the cancellation of the settlement agreement on the grounds that she had never given her former lawyer the power to settle the $150,000 lawsuit and that she was not aware that a settlement had been reached until a few weeks after mediation. After a hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant`s request and granted the plaintiff`s request for follow-up.
The defendant appeals. Settlement provisions are often used as a target in alternative court disputes to end disputes and the ongoing costs of controversy. To this end, settlement provisions, which are sometimes subject to 20 to 20 reviews by a party, are generally considered enforceable. In fact, the Court of Appeal recognized that “[t]he settlement decisions are preferred by the courts and are not set aside lightly. Only if there is sufficient reason for the invalidity of a contract, such as fraud, collusion, error or accident, will a party be released from the consequences of an agreement reached in the course of the dispute. Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d 224 (1984), citing Matter Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 10; Frutiger case, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150. In addition, the Court concluded that the persons entitled to move had not demonstrated that the previous undertaking was not entitled to comply with the provisions. The Court found that, in the context of the implementation of the provisions, the previous undertaking exercised its judgment on the content of the agreements, which was, as expected, necessary for the management of the pending proceedings. In the light of the above, the Court held that there was no reason to repeal the provisions.
“A disposition made by counsel may bind a client even if it exceeds the actual authority of the counsel [*2], if the counsel had the clear authority to comply with the provision” (Davidson v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 819, 819; see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 NY2d, at p. 231). In this case, the plaintiff is bound by the settlement agreement signed by her former lawyer. Even if counsel did not have the actual authority to enter into the settlement agreement on behalf of the plaintiff, the finding that he had the obvious authority to do so is justified by the facts (see Anghel v. Utica Mut. In. Co., 164 AD3d 1294).
The plaintiff`s former counsel participated in the mediation with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, and told the mediator and defense counsel that a representative of his office had spoken to the plaintiff and had been given the authority to settle the $150,000 lawsuit. In addition, the law firm employing the lawyer who participated in the mediation was the plaintiff`s registered lawyer in the lawsuit, and the lawyers of that law firm signed and reviewed the subpoena and complaint, and signed and certified a document note filed in the lawsuit (see Chae Shin Oh v Jeannot, 160 AD3d 701, 702-703; Stoll vs. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 268 AD2d 379, 379-380). In New York, matrimonial settlement agreements are favored by the courts and are not easily overturned. Instead, if a marriage settlement agreement is fair at first glance, the terms of the agreement are enforced without any evidence of coercion, fraud, lack of scruples, or exaggeration. To prove fraud, a party must prove that a fact has been materially distorted, knowing that it was false and intending to convince another party to rely on the falsehood. The injured party must also prove that he or she correctly invoked the misrepresentation and suffered harm as a result. The husband then allegedly filed a lawsuit in which he asked the court to annul the marriage agreement due to coercion, fraud, assault, coercion and lack of scruples.
The husband also filed an application to stay the court order, after which the wife filed a motion to dismiss the husband`s application. The court rejected the wife`s request, after which she appealed. Just because a couple decides to end a marriage doesn`t mean the process of breaking up their relationship should be controversial. Instead, many parties will be able to resolve their disputes without court intervention and will negotiate a matrimonial settlement agreement that resolves custody, alimony, and property division issues. Matrimonial settlement agreements are usually included in divorce judgments and enforced by the courts. In some cases, however, a court will find enough grounds to annul a marriage agreement, as explained in a recent statement issued in New York. .