Skip to content
Franklin LawBrooklyn, New York
← Back to all articles
Case NotesJune 24, 2026· 2 min read

"Consider It Settled" Isn't Settled: When Email Settlements Fail Under CPLR 2104

Teixeira v Woodhaven Ctr. of Care (2d Dept 2019): why an email saying 'consider it settled' didn't create a binding settlement in New York, and what CPLR 2104 actually requires.

Teixeira v Woodhaven Ctr. of Care, 173 AD3d 1108 (2d Dept 2019)

Can a lawsuit be settled by email? In New York, sometimes yes — but as the Second Department's decision in Teixeira shows, loose language costs you. An email in which counsel wrote "consider it settled" was not enough to create a binding settlement.

The rule

CPLR 2104 provides that an agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action — other than one made between counsel in open court — "is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him [or her] or his [or her] attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered."

To be enforceable, a settlement agreement must set forth all material terms, and there must be a clear mutual accord between the parties (Martin v Harrington, 139 AD3d 1017; Little v County of Nassau, 148 AD3d 797).

Email can satisfy the statute. Under Forcelli v Gelco Corp., 109 AD3d 244, where an email contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged (or their agent) types their name under circumstances showing intent that the name be treated as a signature, the email may be deemed a subscribed writing within CPLR 2104.

What the court decided

In Teixeira, the email exchange between counsel did not evidence a clear mutual accord. The phrase "consider it settled" was followed by a discussion of further occurrences necessary to finalize the agreement. Because material steps remained open, the Second Department affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to enforce the purported settlement.

An email that merely confirms a purported settlement is not necessarily sufficient (DeVita v Macy's E., Inc., 36 AD3d 751). The writing must close the deal, not just gesture at one.

What this means for you

In plain English: a settlement isn't done until the paperwork says it's done. If you're resolving a dispute — an injury claim, a business disagreement, anything in litigation — a friendly email or a handshake conversation may feel final, but New York law demands a signed writing that contains all the important terms, with nothing left "to be worked out."

This cuts both ways. If you want a deal locked in, insist on a complete signed writing promptly. If you're being told you already "agreed" to something in a casual email, that agreement may not bind you at all.

This case note is attorney commentary for general information — it is not legal advice about your situation. Every case turns on its own facts.

Tell us what happened. We'll tell you where you stand.

Start with our private AI intake or book a free, confidential consultation. No pressure, no obligation — just a clear next step.

Prefer to type? The chat assistant in the corner can start your intake any time, day or night.