You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether General Releases Encompassed Environmental Damage...
,

Question of Fact Whether General Releases Encompassed Environmental Damage from Leaking Fuel Tank

The Second Department determined that there was a question whether general releases contemplated damages related to environmental contamination and the action should not have been dismissed based on the releases. The action concerned gasoline which had leaked into the ground when defendant had leased the plaintiff’s property.  The court explained:

Generally, a valid release completely bars an action on a claim that is the subject of the release … . Principles of contract law govern the interpretation of a release; “a release that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'” … . Nonetheless, as the Court of Appeals has recognized with respect to a general release, “[t]here is little doubt . . . that its interpretation and limitation by the parol evidence rule are subject to special rules. These rules are based on a realistic recognition that releases contain standardized, even ritualistic, language and are given in circumstances where the parties are sometimes looking no further than the precise matter in dispute that is being settled. Thus, while it has been held that an unreformed general release will be given its full literal effect where it is directly or circumstantially evident that the purpose is to achieve a truly general settlement …, the cases are many in which the release has been avoided with respect to uncontemplated transactions despite the generality of the language in the release form” … .

Further, “[t]he meaning and extent of coverage of a release necessarily depend, as in the case of contracts generally, upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was actually given'” … . A general release may not be construed to cover matters that the parties “did not desire or intend to dispose of” … .

Here, the two releases at issue, whether construed together or separately, are ambiguous regarding whether the parties intended that they cover unknown claims for environmental contamination… .  Burnside 711 LLC v Amerada Hess Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05869, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
Motion to Vacate Default Based On Lack of Jurisdiction Need Not Demonstrate Reasonable Excuse Meritorious Defense
THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).
Under City Administrative Code, Accident Occurred Before Time Had Expired for Property Owner to Address Ice on Abutting Sidewalk/Lessee Did Not Exacerbate the Dangerous Condition/No Liability for Slip and Fall
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Injury to Real Property, Waste, Trespass, Conversion and Private Nuisance Actions Based Upon Removal of Trees from Unrecorded Easement
TRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE RULING THAT TWO FACIALLY AMBIGUOUS RELEASES EXECUTED BY PRIOR OWNER OF THE GAS STATION APPLIED TO THE CONTAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY BY LEAKED GASOLINE; THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE GAS STATION COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RECOVER THE CLEANUP COSTS FROM THE DEFENDANT GASOLINE SUPPLIER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).

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

No Evidence Release Invalidated by Fraud or Duress Authenticity of Document Not Demonstrated