You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER...
,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this traffic accident case had raised questions of fact about when the release signed by plaintiff under unfair circumstances:

… [P]laintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, and whether it was not “fairly and knowingly” made … . The plaintiff averred, among other things, that shortly after the accident, an insurance representative for the defendants called him “repeatedly;” that he had difficulty understanding the defendants’ representative due to a language barrier; that the defendants’ representative, who had him sign the release to obtain money for medical bills, never explained that the document he signed was a release or had the legal effect of the release; and that the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney at the time he signed the release. Moreover, the plaintiff raised questions of fact as to whether there was mutual mistake as to the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff from the alleged accident … . Wei Qiang Huang v Llerena-Salazar, 2023 NY Slip Op 06772, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: Unfair circumstances surrounding the signing of a release, short of fraud, can invalidate it.

 

You might also like
THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Properly Handle Note from Jury Was Reversible Error
DAMAGES FOR FRAUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED UPON OUT OF POCKET LOSS, NOT PROFITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED ABSENT THE FRAUD, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE DAMAGES UNDER THE OUT OF POCKET RULE, NO RELIEF CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE NONAPPEALING PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Properly Allowed to File a Late Notice of Claim—Criteria Explained
INTEREST MUST BE RECALCULATED AND ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE, PERHAPS IN A HEARING, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.
INSURER DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS OF THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE, INSURER MUST DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under CPLR 301 or 302, Criteria Explained

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

THE PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE... IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED...