You are here: / / Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No...
,

Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.

The fact that the plaintiff signed a general release and hold-harmless agreement was not enough to settle the case.  There was no proof the plaintiff’s attorney communicated plaintiff’s acceptance of the settlement offer to the defendant or defendant’s insurance carrier.  Therefore, plaintiff, with a new attorney, was allowed to go forward with the lawsuit and plaintiff’s original attorney could not collect his contingency fee, which was based on the settlement-amount. Gyabaah v Rivlab Transportation Corp., et al, 7654, Index 309081/10 First Dept. 1-10-13

 

You might also like
Money Paid Into Court in Conjunction with Stay Pending Appeal Does Not Stop Accruing of Interest Until Prevailing Party is Paid
CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA.
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED ELEVATED PLATFORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
APPEAL OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND CONSTRUCTION HAD CONTINUED TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE WITHOUT CAUSING UNDUE HARM.
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Father Estopped from Denying Paternity Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.