Attorney Was Authorized to Represent Landlord

HPD sued landlord to enforce the removal of building violations and provision of heat and hot water for tenants. Sometime after a consent order was issued, HPD sought a contempt order for noncompliance. Landlord then asked the court to vacate the consent order, claiming that the attorney who signed that agreement wasn't authorized to do so on his behalf. The court ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. The lower court's hearing evidence showed that the attorney unquestionably had authority to represent the building owner and two of three individuals who were officers of the owner entity. And even if the attorney lacked actual authority, the court record contained proof of his apparent authority to enter into the consent order. No other attorney had appeared in court, and none of the individuals present in court at the time objected to the attorney signing the consent order.

HPD v. Shpigel: NYLJ, 4/28/11, p. 29, col. 3 (App. T. 1 Dept.; Schoenfeld, JP, Shulman, Hunter, JJ)