Carlos Delgado v. Authentic Memorabilia, LLC, and Spencer Lader
Summary of the case Carlos Delgado v. Authentic Memorabilia, LLC, and Spencer Lader
The plaintiff, Carlos Delgado, appealed an order denying his motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement with defendant Spencer Lader. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, affirmed the denial, stating the agreement was not sufficiently documented to meet CPLR 2104 requirements, and no prejudice was shown to apply estoppel against Lader.
Key Issues of the case Carlos Delgado v. Authentic Memorabilia, LLC, and Spencer Lader
- Enforcement of a purported settlement agreement
- Application of estoppel due to oral representations
Key Facts of the case Carlos Delgado v. Authentic Memorabilia, LLC, and Spencer Lader
- The purported settlement agreement was not sufficiently reduced to writing.
- The plaintiff failed to show prejudice from Lader's oral representations.
Decision of the case Carlos Delgado v. Authentic Memorabilia, LLC, and Spencer Lader
The order is affirmed, with costs.
Opinions
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), entered August 24, 2012, which denied his motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement entered into with the defendant Spencer Lader.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement entered into with the defendant Spencer Lader. The purported settlement agreement was never sufficiently reduced to writing to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 2104 (see Bonnette v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 3 NY3d 281 [2004]; Williams v Bushman, 70 AD3d 679 [2010]; Matter of Morse Hill Assoc., LLC, 50 AD3d 906 [2008]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show any prejudice resulting from Lader’s oral representations warranting the application of estoppel against Lader (see Lowe v Steinman, 284 AD2d 506 [2001]; Smith v Lefrak Org., 142 AD2d 725 [1988]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the purported settlement agreement.