Case Name: A. Mal Malvin, Appellant, v. Marsha Schwartz et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1979-10-16
Citations: 48 N.Y.2d 693
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. Mal Malvin, Appellant, v Marsha Schwartz et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
A. Mal Malvin, Appellant, v Marsha Schwartz et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Argued September 4, 1979;
decided October 16, 1979
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Stanford A. Schwartz for appellant.
Jon Emanuel for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Since the parties had not executed an express stipulation of discontinuance of the action, or entered judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement, the action had not terminated. Thus, the settlement was amenable to enforcement by motion (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51). Furthermore, insofar as defendant was relieved from adherence to the letter of the settlement, it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see, e.g., Barry v Mutual Life Ins. Co., 53 NY 536, 540).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.