AC Penguin Prestige Corp. v. Two Thousand Fifteen Artisanal LLC

Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Tom, Oing, JJ.

Paul T. Vink, White Plains, for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered on or about February 20, 2018, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claim for breach of a settlement agreement, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Defendants' bald assertion that their signatures on the settlement agreement were forged is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the genuineness of the signatures (see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 299 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 2002], affd 1 NY3d 381 [2004]).

Further, documentary evidence, in the form of email correspondence, establishes that defendants were aware of their counsel's participation in settlement negotiations and the settlement. Therefore, even if he did not have actual authority, counsel had apparent authority to bind defendants to the settlement agreement (see Stoll v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 268 AD2d 379, 380 [1st Dept 2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 30, 2019

CLERK