Williamson v Delsener
2009 NY Slip Op 01333 [59 AD3d 291]
February 24, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


Richard A. Williamson, Esq., as Successor Liquidating Trustee ofLipper Fixed Income Fund, L.P., Appellant,
v
Ron Delsener, Respondent, et al.,Defendants.

[*1]Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York (Jonathan Gardner of counsel), for appellant.

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, New York (Jane G. Stevens of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 13,2007, to the extent it denied plaintiff's motion for judgment on a negotiated settlement,unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and plaintiff awarded against defendant Delsenerthe principal amount of $84,868.20, plus statutory interest from December 12, 2006. The Clerk isdirected to enter judgment accordingly.

The e-mails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end,constitute signed writings (CPLR 2104) within the meaning of the statute of frauds (see Stevens v Publicis S.A., 50 AD3d253, 255-256 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 930 [2008]), and entitle plaintiff tojudgment (CPLR 5003-a [e]). The agreement to settle at 60% of the amount demanded wassufficiently clear and concrete to constitute an enforceable contract (see Hostcentric Tech.,Inc. v Republic Thunderbolt, LLC, 2005 WL 1377853, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 11130 [SD NY2005]). Delsener's subsequent refusal to execute form releases and a stipulation ofdiscontinuance did not invalidate the agreement (see Wronka v GEM Community Mgt., 49 AD3d 869 [2008]; Cole v Macklowe, 40 AD3d 396[2007]).

The e-mail communications indicate that Delsener was aware of and consented to thesettlement; the record contains no indication to the contrary, or that counsel was withoutauthority to enter into the settlement (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224[1984]; cf. Katzen v Twin Pines FuelCorp., 16 AD3d 133 [2005]). To the contrary, the record supports only the conclusionthat counsel at least had apparent authority.[*2]

We find no merit to Delsener's argument that this Courtlacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire andDeGrasse, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 33632(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.