You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was Fraudulently Induced to Sign a Release—Relevant...
,

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was Fraudulently Induced to Sign a Release—Relevant Law Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether plaintiff was fraudulently induced to sign a release re: a potential personal-injury action. The release was signed three days after the accident when the plaintiff was still on pain medication and it was alleged the insurance adjuster told her the offered funds were for plaintiff’s “inconvenience” and not to compensate for her injuries.  The court explained relevant law:

” A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law'” … . “Generally, a valid release that is clear and unambiguous on its face constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release absent fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, mutual mistake or duress'” … .

“A signed release shifts the burden of going forward . . . to the [plaintiff] to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release'” … . “A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release due to fraudulent inducement must establish the basic elements of fraud, namely a representation of a material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation that it was false when made, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury'” … . Moreover, there is a requirement that a release covering both known and unknown injuries be ” fairly and knowingly made'” … . Powell v Adler, 2015 NY Slip Op 04466, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE.
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).
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Effect of Witness’ Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege on Fairness Explained
Inadequate Excuse for Delay In Answering Complaint—Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Should Have Been Denied
Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone... Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution...