LAWYER HAD AUTHORITY TO SETTLE CASE ON PLAINTIFFS’ BEHALF
After a settlement was reached with ExxonMobil Oil Corp for property damages sustained as a result of oil contamination to the plaintiffs’ property, they later sought to vacate that agreement claiming that their attorney lacked the requisite authority to resolve the litigation.
In response to the Westchester County Supreme Court's denial of that request, and its grant of ExxonMobil’s application to enforce the October 2021 stipulation, an appeal ensued.
On its review, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that the plaintiffs’ attorney had represented them since January 2020, and had appeared in open court in October of 2021, claiming that he had the authority to resolve the dispute. In addition, one of the plaintiffs, "Peter M.," was present with counsel and independently accepted the settlement “on the record.”
While there were arguments made by "Paul and Josephine M." that the attorney had been discharged prior to the stipulation date, the AD2 noted that their failure to appear in court or to otherwise proceed with the scheduled trial, or to follow the appropriate attorney-discharge procedures, negated those contentions.
Given the absence of a legal basis to vacate the settlement, and particularly considering the public policy which favors the enforcement of such agreements, the AD2 concluded that the plaintiffs were bound thereby and that the court below had “properly granted” ExxonMobil’s motion to enforce the agreement.
Now how slick was that?
# # #
DECISION