Back in 2005, within the context of litigation, the parties agreed that the Steinhoffs would pay Eastman $5,000, a new survey would be performed, and a new boundary-line agreement would be established.
Although Eastman had made a deal with Maria Osterman to transfer the property to her and had been authorized to settle the case on her behalf, Osterman refused to execute the agreement Eastman negotiated.
When the Queens County Supreme Court denied the Steinhoffs' motion to enforce the settlement, an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, ensued.
The AD2 noted that the Eastman/Steinhoff agreement was enforceable because it was memorialized in a writing "subscribed by the attorneys for both Eastman and [the Steinhoffs]," and had incorporated the findings of the new survey.
Since Eastman was Osterman's "agent" for purposes of resolving the dispute, the appellate court concluded the latter was also bound by the settlement terms.
Obviously, that's where the AD2 drew the line.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Eastman v. Steinhoff