AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

MARINE MIDLAND BANK, N.A., Respondent, v. RAMLEH ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This foreclosure action arises from the appellants' default on a real estate acquisition and development loan given by the plaintiff. During a pre-trial settlement conference before the court, this action was purportedly settled for $2,600,000, with the appellants agreeing to pay the plaintiff within 90 days from execution of a written stipulation. However, there was no record made of the purported settlement. After the settlement conference, the appellants failed to respond to a motion to dismiss their affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and the court granted that relief.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, there is insufficient evidence that a final settlement agreement was ever reached in open court (see, CPLR 2104; Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1). At the very least, an oral agreement made in open court "must be entered in the minute book of such a proceeding" (Kalomiris v. County of Nassau, 121 A.D.2d 367, 368). Here, there is a dispute that full agreement had been reached and no entry reflecting a settlement was made in the minute book; therefore, it was proper for the Supreme Court to deny the appellants' cross motion for enforcement (see, Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 1, 10-11, supra; see also, Zambrana v. Memnon, 181 A.D.2d 730).

There is no merit to the appellants' remaining contentions. Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MARINE MIDLAND BANK v. RAMLEH ENTERPRISES
(Mar 7, 1994)