Summary
affirming dismissal where plaintiffs waited one year to assert duress claim
Summary of this case from Vulcan Capital Corp. v. Miller Energy Res., Inc.Opinion
March 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Plaintiffs seek to void certain agreements on the ground of duress, claiming that the defendants threatened plaintiff Jay Kranitz with prosecution for certain criminal acts. Duress requires a showing of both a wrongful threat and the effect of precluding the exercise of free will (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 N.Y.2d 124, 130). The record reflects the exercise of free will on the part of Mr. Kranitz to accept the benefits of the mortgage arrangement. Even if we were to conclude otherwise, we would note that the plaintiffs waited a full year to assert duress. A contract obtained under threat of criminal prosecution is voidable only, and must be promptly disaffirmed (see, Marine Midland Bank v Mitchell, 100 A.D.2d 733).
We have reviewed plaintiffs' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.