You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (1)...
, ,

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (1) FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO SIGN A RELEASE AND (2) FOR RESCISSION OF THE RELEASE BASED UPON UNILATERAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint stated causes of action for fraudulent inducement (to sign a release) and for recsission of the release based on a unilateral mistake. Plaintiff in this traffic accident case alleged the defendant insurer fraudulently induced him to sign the release by telling him the release applied only to property damage, not to personal injury. Plaintiff alleged English was his second language, he did not have his reading glasses, and he relied on the insurance agent’s representations:

“To state a [cause of action to recover damages] for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury'” … . “The plaintiff must also establish that he or she reasonably relied upon the alleged misrepresentation” … . “A party is under an obligation to read a document before signing it, and cannot generally avoid the effect of the document on the ground that he or she did not read it or know its contents” … . However, “there are situations where an instrument will be deemed void because the signer was unaware of the nature of the instrument he or she was signing, such as where the signer is illiterate, or blind, or ignorant of the alien language of the writing, and the contents thereof are misread or misrepresented to him [or her] by the other party, or even by a stranger” … .

Here, the complaint stated a cause of action by Israel to recover damages for fraudulent inducement against Progressive and Roberts by alleging, inter alia, that English is Israel’s second language, his ability to read English is limited, and he justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by Progressive’s agent, Roberts, as to the effect of the release, which has resulted in financial damages to him … .

Moreover, the complaint stated a cause of action by Israel, in effect, to rescind the release based on a unilateral mistake against Progressive and Roberts, as the complaint alleged that Israel’s mistake was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation … . Israel v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 06357, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged English was his second language, he didn’t have his reading glasses, he was told the release pertained only to property damage, not personal injury, and he relied on that representation. The complaint stated causes of action for fraudulent inducement and rescission of the release based on unilateral mistake.

 

You might also like
GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Contractual Indemnification Explained
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF, THE REAR DRIVER, RAISED CREDIBILITY ISSUES BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE POLICE REPORT AND AVERRING DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY WITHOUT USING A TURN SIGNAL (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

APPELLANT, WHICH HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS... IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO...