You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Release Procured by Fraud or Duress
,

Question of Fact About Whether Release Procured by Fraud or Duress

In upholding the denial of defendant’s (Countrywide’s) motion for summary judgment based upon the execution of a release, the Second Department determined that the allegations of fraud and duress in procurement of the release raised a question of fact:

 The Countrywide defendants’ motion was properly denied. Although the plaintiff’s execution of the release in favor of the defendants was “a jural act of high significance” …, “a motion to dismiss should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged”… . Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the Countrywide defendants procured the release by means of fraud or duress, so as to warrant denial of their motion.   Warmhold v Zagarino, 2013 NY Slip Op 03668, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Whether ¾ Inch Height Differential Was “Trivial”
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE SPECIFIC OR MAXIMUM PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Notice of Claim Including Substantive Changes to the Facts and New Theories of Liability Should Not Have Been Allowed—Original Notice of Claim Inadequate
ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE TIMES SHE WAS DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF STUDENT BY ANOTHER STUDENT HAPPENED IN SO SHORT A TIME IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Theory of Damages in Contract Action​ Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff was Special Employee​