Opinion
383 CA 17–01288
03-23-2018
Renee Y. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Timothy SAVAGE, Defendant–Respondent.
KEVIN GAUGHAN, BUFFALO, FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN WALLACE, BUFFALO (BETSY F. VISCO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
KEVIN GAUGHAN, BUFFALO, FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN WALLACE, BUFFALO (BETSY F. VISCO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
In November 2016, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendant's negligence caused a motor vehicle accident in which she was injured. The accident occurred in October 2014 in Buffalo. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5), asserting that, in January 2016, plaintiff in exchange for $25,000 had executed a general release stating, inter alia, that defendant was released and forever discharged from any liability of any kind related to the accident. Supreme Court granted the motion, and we affirm.
"Where, as here, the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a jural act binding on the parties" ( Marlowe v. Muhlnickel , 294 A.D.2d 830, 831, 740 N.Y.S.2d 906 [4th Dept. 2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Booth v. 3669 Delaware, 242 A.D.2d 921, 921–922, 662 N.Y.S.2d 642 [4th Dept. 1997], affd 92 N.Y.2d 934, 680 N.Y.S.2d 899, 703 N.E.2d 757 [1998] ; Mangini v. McClurg , 24 N.Y.2d 556, 563, 301 N.Y.S.2d 508, 249 N.E.2d 386 [1969] ). "[A] general release is governed by principles of contract law" ( Mangini , 24 N.Y.2d at 562, 301 N.Y.S.2d 508, 249 N.E.2d 386 ) and " ‘should not be set aside unless plaintiff demonstrates duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake’ " ( Schroeder v. Connelly , 46 A.D.3d 1439, 1440, 848 N.Y.S.2d 789 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see Mangini , 24 N.Y.2d at 563, 301 N.Y.S.2d 508, 249 N.E.2d 386 ). "Strong policy considerations favor the enforcement of [release] agreements" ( Denburg v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl , 82 N.Y.2d 375, 383, 604 N.Y.S.2d 900, 624 N.E.2d 995 [1993] ), and "[a] release ‘should never be converted into a starting point for ... litigation except under circumstances and under rules which would render any other result a grave injustice’ " ( Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V , 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [2011] ). Inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to allege or set forth any grounds to invalidate the release, the terms thereof bar this action, and thus the court properly granted the motion. "At best, plaintiff[ ] ha[s] established a mere unilateral mistake ... with respect to the meaning and effect of the release. Such a mistake does not constitute an adequate basis for invalidating a clear, unambiguous and validly executed release" ( Booth , 242 A.D.2d at 922, 662 N.Y.S.2d 642 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.