You are here: / / Unambiguous Terms of a Release Must Be Enforced—Extrinsic Evidence...

Unambiguous Terms of a Release Must Be Enforced—Extrinsic Evidence of Intent Not Permitted

In affirming the dismissal of a complaint which was deemed barred by the terms of a release, the Second Department explained the criteria for the analysis of a release:

Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release … . A release is “governed by principles of contract law” …, and one “that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … .

The plain language of a release is controlling, “regardless of one party’s claim that he [or she] intended something else” … . Where the scope of the release is unambiguous, “the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent” … . “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” …. Sicuranza v Philip Howard Apts Tenants Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07143, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

You might also like
OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE.
PHYSICIAN’S DUTY EXTENDS ONLY TO THE TASK ASSIGNED, HERE THE INTERPRETATION OF MRI FILM.
BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.
ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN DID NOT DEPART FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE; THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Rear-End Collision Liability Explained 1961 Royalties-Agreement Between Duke Ellington and Music Publishers Was Not...