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
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINES PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THAT FATHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE CUSTODY MATTER (SECOND DEPT).
ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN CORE PRESERVATION AREA.
Intoxication Jury Instruction Was Warranted, Conviction Reversed
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Insurance Company’s Failure to Submit Second Request for Verification of No-Fault Claim Precluded Tolling of 30-Day Payment Period
THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (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

Court Should Have Allowed Service of an Order to Show Cause by Means Other than... Release Given By Injured Party to a Tortfeasor Relieves that Tortfeasor of Any...