Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ernest TWUMASI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TJMT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Robert Medina, Defendant-Respondent. Ernest Twumasi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TJMT Transportation Services, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Robert Medina, Defendant.
Order and ensuing judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered November 20, 1997 and March 10, 1998, respectively, which, inter alia, granted the CPLR 3211(a) motion of defendant Paccar Financial Corp. and dismissed the complaint against defendants Paccar Financial Corp. and TJMT Transportation Services, Inc., and order, same court and Justice, entered May 29, 1998, which granted the motion of defendant Robert Medina to vacate his default and for leave to file a late answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this personal injury action, the motion court, in dismissing the complaint against defendants Paccar Financial and TJMT, properly found that the settlement agreement entered into between those parties and plaintiff in a prior action predicated on the same causes as are asserted herein barred the instant attempt at relitigating those causes. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the prior settlement is enforceable since it was in substantial compliance with the requirements of CPLR 2104 (see, Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Gramercy Brokerage, Inc., 106 A.D.2d 725, 728, 484 N.Y.S.2d 156; Langlois v. Langlois, 5 A.D.2d 75, 169 N.Y.S.2d 170). Moreover, where, as here, defendants relied on the settlement to their detriment, plaintiff is equitably estopped from avoiding it (see, Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 232, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178).
The court also properly vacated the default of defendant Medina in light of his showing of a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Cipriano v. Hank, 197 A.D.2d 295, 297, 610 N.Y.S.2d 523).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 21, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)