You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN A RELEASE BY...
,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN A RELEASE BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR OVERREACHING SHOUILD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to dismiss to complaint should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he signed a released because of the fraud, duress and/or overreaching of the defendants:

The complaint and plaintiff’s affidavit raise issues of fact as to whether defendants engaged in fraud, duress, and/or overreaching to procure plaintiff’s signature on a general release of his claims against them related to his alleged fall from a 30-foot ladder while working at a construction site … . There is little dispute that the release, written in English, unambiguously released all plaintiff’s claims against defendants in exchange for $30,000 in consideration, which plaintiff received. However, plaintiff avers that he does not read English, that he did not have counsel at the time he executed the document, that he did not know the nature or purpose of the document he signed, and that defendants represented to him that the execution of the document was a mere formality required for his receipt of compensation for work performed. Plaintiff averred that he was out of work at the time, facing eviction and medical bills, and in need of financial support, and that he was hoping to travel to Puerto Rico to see his brother, who was dying. He averred that he did not understand the nature of the release he signed until he retained counsel to aid him in prosecuting a workers’ compensation claim. Rosa v McAlpine Contr. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03216, First Dept 5-17-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff raised questions of fact about whether he was induced to sign a release by fraud, duress and/or overreaching. His allegations included his inability to read English, he did not have a lawyer, he did not know what he was signing, and defendants said signing was a mere formality,

 

You might also like
THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL.
EVICTION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY FOR PETITIONER’S MOMENTARY LOSS OF CONTROL DURING WHICH SHE STRUCK A NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (FIRST DEPT).
HUSBAND ENTITLED TO REVOKE HIS CONSENT TO USE OF A FROZEN EMBRYO, EMBRYO AWARDED TO HUSBAND FOR SOLE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A STEP BROKE AS HE STEPPED ON IT; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SIGN THE STEP WAS DEFECTIVE; HOWEVER, THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON AN INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT A STAIRCASE BE “FREE OF DEFECTS,” PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply

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

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR REGISTRY... PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR...