You are here: / / Unambiguous Release Is a Jural Act of High Significance Which Must Be ...

Unambiguous Release Is a Jural Act of High Significance Which Must Be Enforced

In explaining the legal principles underlying the enforcement of releases, the Second Department wrote:

Public policy favors the enforcement of settlements …, and a release is “a jural act of high significance without which the settlement of disputes would be rendered all but impossible” ….. Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release…, and should not “be converted into a starting point for renewed litigation” …


“[A] release is governed by principles of contract law”…, and a release “that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms”…. “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” … . Inter-Reco, Inc v Lake Park 175 Froehlich Farm, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03637, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

You might also like
NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
Brutality of Offense Warranted an Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding
TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
Verdict Set Aside as Irreconcilably Inconsistent (Jury Found Defective Sidewalk Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall)
A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, SUA SPONTE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior Possession of Guns Under Sandoval—Possession of Guns Has No Bearing on Credibility

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or... Theory of Damages in Contract Action​