You are here: / / THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH;...
, ,

THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff with respect to defendant M & I was valid, despite the fact that plaintiff did not understand English:

A person who does not understand the English language is not automatically excused from complying with the terms of a signed agreement, since such person must make a reasonable effort to have the agreement made clear to him or her … . Here, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff … demonstrates that the terms of the release were explained to the injured plaintiff before he executed the document … . Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that CPLR 2101(b) precluded consideration of the release. That statute provides that papers to be “served or filed shall be in the English language” and “[w]here an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate” (CPLR 2101[b]). Here, the release was written in English. Ivasyuk v Raglan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04706, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

You might also like
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.
Plaintiff Should Have Been Granted Extension to Serve Summons and Complaint Three Days After 120-Day Period Expired
Money Available to Father from Relatives for Children’s College Expenses Should Have Been Considered in Allocating those Expenses between Mother and Father
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Not Enough Evidence Before Family Court to Make Custody Determination
NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.
Valid Cause of Action Stated in Slip and Fall Suit Against Abutting Property Owner for Obstruction in Sidewalk (Gas Cap Cover)
THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (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

AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY... THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION WAS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE...