Resettled order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Appellants claim that the proposed $22,500 settlement was inadequate and that it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have granted permission to settle the underlying action. However, in order for plaintiffs to have prevailed in that underlying action, they would have had to establish defendants' liability for an attack by certain dogs. Further, to prove damages the plaintiffs would have had to convince...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
