Tauber v Haecker

[*1] Tauber v Haecker 2015 NY Slip Op 51485(U) Decided on October 7, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570470/15

Larry Tauber, Michael Tauber and Florence Goldsmith, Petitioners-Landlords-Respondents,

against

Randal Haecker, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered October 3, 2014, which denied his motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement and restore the case to the calendar for a hearing to determine his reasonable attorneys' fees.

Per curiam.

Order (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered October 3, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and matter remanded to Civil Court for a hearing to assess the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by tenant.

The record evidence establishes that the parties entered into a binding agreement to settle the underlying owner occupancy proceeding. The emails exchanged between counsel set forth all the essential terms of the agreement, and indicated that a stipulation would follow. A further email exchange between counsel set forth their agreement regarding the language of the written stipulation. Landlords' attorney then forwarded the agreed upon written stipulation to tenant's attorney; both tenant and his attorney signed the stipulation; tenant's counsel also executed a stipulation discontinuing a Housing Part proceeding previously commenced by tenant, as required by paragraph 13 of the settlement agreement; and both the settlement stipulation and stipulation of discontinuance were then returned to landlord's counsel. Although landlords and their counsel never signed the stipulation, and thereafter attempted to revoke the agreement, the record demonstrates that both parties intended to be bound by the agreement, and it is therefore enforceable (see Options Group, Inc. v Vyas, 91 AD3d 446, 447 [2012]; Kowalchuk v Stroup, 61 AD3d 118, 125 [2009]). In this regard, we note that neither the written stipulation nor the parties email exchange indicated an intent not to be bound until an agreement was executed by both parties (id. at 124).

Landlords' attorney had actual authority to settle the case, and even if, arguendo, counsel lacked actual authority, there is no evidence that he lacked apparent authority to bind his clients (see 1420 Concourse Corp. v Cruz, 175 AD2d 747, 749 [1991], citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231 [1984]).

Upon landlords' breach of the settlement agreement, tenant was entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to the attorneys' fees provision contained in paragraph 23 of the settlement agreement.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 07, 2015