The purpose of CPLR § 3221 is to encourage settlements. (Zeitlin v. N.Y. Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. (2015) 49 Misc. 3d 511, 514.)
CPLR § 3221 states in part:
[A]t any time not later than ten days before trial, any party against whom a claim is asserted, and against whom a separate judgment may be taken, may serve upon the claimant a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against him for a sum or property or to the effect therein specified, with costs then accrued. If within ten days thereafter the claimant serves a written notice that he accepts the offer, either party may file the summons, complaint and offer, with proof of acceptance, and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. If the offer is not accepted and the claimant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, he shall not recover costs from the time of the offer, but shall pay costs from that time. An offer of judgment shall not be made known to the jury. (Adone v. Paletto (2005) N.Y. Slip Op. 50196 citing CPLR § 3221.)
Although the purpose of CPLR § 3221 is to encourage settlements, there is nothing in the statute suggesting that an unstated dismissal sanction was contemplated or intended. Neither does the statute permit a Court to affirmatively compel a claimant to accept a statutory offer of compromise. (Zeitlin v. N.Y. Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. (2015) 49 Misc. 3d 511, 514 citing Margulis v. Solomon & Berck Co. (1928) 223 A.D. 634, 635.)
“CPLR 3221 provides its own remedy for a party's nonacceptance of such offer by rendering said party liable for any costs accrued subsequent to the time of the offer if the party ultimately fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.” (Show Lain Cheng v. Young (2008) 25 Misc.3d 1227, 2008 WL 7108505,1, 7 [aff'd,60 A.D.3d 989, 878 N.Y.S.2d 367.]) CPLR § 3221 is ostensibly applicable, by its terms, to all offers of compromise, without reference to specific monetary amounts, and expressly limits the consequences of non-acceptance to the payment of costs. If the legislature intended to confer upon a Court the power to unilaterally compel acceptance of a compromise offer, or to permit it to dismiss an action based on a claimant's rejection of an offer, it could, and presumably would, have stated as much. (Zeitlin, supra, 49 Misc. 3d at 515.)
CPLR §4547 provides generally that evidence of any conduct or statement made during compromise negotiations shall be inadmissible in court.
CPLR 4547 codifies the long-established common-law rule in New York that “the settlement of a disputed claim or an offer to settle . . . is inadmissible to prove . . . the liability of the alleged wrongdoer.” (Andresen v Kirschner (2001) 190 Misc 2d 779, 781 [quoting Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4547, 2001-2002 Interim Pocket Part, at 105.)
Before CPLR 4547 was passed in 1998, “[t]he traditional rule in New York was that unqualified statements of fact made during settlement negotiations were admissible against the party who made the statements.” (Miller v. Sanchez (2004) 6 Misc. 3d 479, 484 citing Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4547, 2004 Pocket Part, at 141; see also Reid & Priest L.L.P. v Realty Asset Group, Ltd. (1998) 250 A.D.2d 380, 380; Bellino v Bellino Constr. Co. (1980) 75 A.D.2d 630, 630-631.)
“This rule is founded upon public policy, and with a view of encouraging and facilitating the settlement of legal controversies by compromise, which object is supposed to be obstructed by the fear entertained by litigants that such a negotiation may be converted into a trap to inveigle the unwary into hazardous admissions. The law, therefore, excludes such admissions as appear to have been made tentatively or hypothetically, but admits those only which concede the existence of a fact.” (Bigelow-Sanford, Inc. v. Specialized Commercial Floors of Rochester, Inc. (1980) 77 A.D.2d 464, 465-66.)
Here are a few examples of how courts have ruled:
“If [a] court were to enforce a previously rejected offer of compromise three months after it was rejected it would breach the provisions of CPLR § 3221 by extending the ten day rule contained within it without any consent of both parties. Disregarding the provisions of CPLR § 3221 would constitute a usurpation of the legislative role in rewriting the statute. But more importantly, it would create chaos within the court system where after a settlement on a case was reached, counsel for the plaintiff would be allowed to add terms such as costs and disbursements and perhaps even interest.” (Adone v. Paletto, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50196 [holding that “the plaintiffs' motion for a judgment to enforce the offer to compromise is denied.”)
In Alternatives Federal Credit Union v. Olbios, the court held that letters in which the defendant openly acknowledged its responsibility for indemnifying plaintiff for the cost of the remediation effort to be outside the scope of CPLR 4547. The letters were not offers to settle or compromise any claim with respect to the issue of liability but rather were written to explain defendant's delay in accepting responsibility for the cost of clean up and only disputed the cost. (Alternatives Federal Credit Union v. Olbios, LLC (2005) 14 A.D.3d 779, 787.)
Dec 27, 2017
San Mateo County, CA
Oct 25, 2017
Butte County, CA
Jul 19, 2019
Placer County, CA
Sep 15, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Jul 21, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Jul 26, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Jan 21, 2016
San Joaquin County, CA
Jun 23, 2016
San Joaquin County, CA
Oct 29, 2015
San Joaquin County, CA
Jul 07, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Oct 23, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 26, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Oct 11, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
Jun 17, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 17, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jun 25, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 29, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Oct 29, 2015
San Joaquin County, CA
Aug 14, 2006
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 28, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 12, 2014
Sacramento County, CA
Mar 03, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Mar 21, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Jan 15, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Apr 07, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.