You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE...

PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING, LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST HER ATTORNEYS PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraudulent concealment complaint against her prior attorneys was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged she was not aware a document she signed settled a lawsuit for $200,000. The court explained she was deemed to have read and understood the document before signing it:

​

” A party is under an obligation to read a document before he or she signs it, and a party cannot generally avoid the effect of a [document] on the ground that he or she did not read it or know its contents'” … . Generally, a cause of action alleging that the plaintiff was induced to sign something different from what he or she thought was being signed only arises if the signer is illiterate, blind, or not a speaker of the language in which the document is written … . Here, the … defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action asserted against the … firm … by presenting evidence that the plaintiff could read and understand English, that she had the opportunity to read the document dated June 10, 2009, which expressly stated that she was accepting $200,000 “as full and final compensation for her loss of services claim,” and that she never expressed any difficulty understanding the terms of the document … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was incapable of understanding the document signed by her based on her conclusory testimony that “[n]o one . . . explained [it] to me.” Anderson v Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 03721, 2nd Dept 5-19-17

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING, LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST HER ATTORNEYS PROPERLY DISMISSED)

​

You might also like
THE DENIAL OF THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT ADVISE PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT TO HIS MOTHER, ON THE PHONE, ABOUT NEEDING THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974.
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Presentation of Defense Expert Re: the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (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

CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE... NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO DISCOVERY IN THIS SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST...