Adwoa Gyabaah was hit by a bus owned by Rivlab Transportation Company. She retained attorney Aronsky to represent her in negotiations with the bus company, their insurance company, and their attorneys for a contingency fee of one-third of her recovery. On October 1, 2010, defendant tendered Aronsky its $1 million policy limits for purposes of settlement. After Aronsky explained the settlement to her, Gyabaah said she accepted it and signed a general release on October 5, 2010. Aronsky said he would hold onto the release for her until she decided whether she wanted the settlement in one lump sum or paid over a period of time.
On December 9, 2013, Gyabaah retained a new lawyer, Kenneth Wilhelm, and he advised Aronsky that Gyabaah did not wish to settle the case nor have the release sent over to the defendant. Aronsky filed a motion with the court seeking to enforce the $1 million settlement and setting his contingency fee at one-third of the recovery in accordance with the contingency agreement. The relevant issue in this case was whether there was a valid settlement agreement between the bus company and Gyabaah. Do you think the court found a valid agreement? Why or why not? [Gyabaah v. Rivlab Transp. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 1018, 4 N.E.3d 359, 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 3446 (2013).]