Sills v. Royston
Opinion
| Sills v Royston |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 02635 |
| Decided on April 30, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on April 30, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
198 CA 20-00701
v
JOAN ROYSTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. - IN THE MATTER OF AUDREY E. SILLS, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANGELINE . SILLS, DECEASED, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, FLEET NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, JOAN ROYSTON AND KIRK RICHARDSON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN, BINGHAMTON (RONALD R. BENJAMIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARGENTIERI, HORNELL (PAUL A. ARGENTIERI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Patrick F. McAllister, A.J.), entered January 24, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of plaintiff-petitioner to enforce a settlement agreement and directed defendant-respondent Joan Royston to pay $300,000 to the Estate of Angeline V. Sills.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We write only to note that the contentions of defendant-respondent Joan Royston and respondent Kirk Richardson questioning whether all the material terms for a contract or an intent to be bound were established are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora , 202 AD2d 984, 985 [4th Dept 1994]).
Entered: April 30, 2021
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.