You are here: / / GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED...
,

GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although the release signed by plaintiff (Moore) mentioned a 2007 action, the release stated it was not limited to the 2007 action. Therefore it applied to the instant action. The fact that plaintiff may not have intended that it apply to the current proceedings, a unilateral mistake, does not invalidate a contract:

The general release, executed by Moore after he commenced the present action, released defendant “from all manner of . . . claims and demands . . . in law or in equity that against [defendant] he ever had, now has or which he . . . shall or may have for any reason from the beginning of the world to the date of this release.” Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the release is limited by its terms to the 2007 action, noting that “where a release contains a recital of a particular claim . . . and there is nothing on the face of the instrument other than general words of release to show that anything more than the matters particularly specified was intended to be discharged, the general words of release are deemed to be limited thereby” … . The release, however, does not limit or otherwise restrict itself to the 2007 action. Rather, it clearly and unambiguously specifies that it “includes, but is not limited to,” the incident that led to the 2007 action … . Moore executed the release with full knowledge that this action was pending against defendant, and the “timing and unequivocal and unconditional language” of the release therefore demonstrates its applicability to the 2014 action at issue here … . …

Although plaintiffs claim that Moore did not intend for the release to encompass this action when he executed it, “the fact that [Moore] may have intended something else is irrelevant[, as] a mere unilateral mistake . . . with respect to the meaning and effect of the release . . . does not constitute an adequate basis for invalidating” it … . Stevens v Town of Chenango (Forks), 2018 NY Slip Op 08389, Third Dept 12-6-18

CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/RELEASES  (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
THE CANDIDATE SIGNED THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS STATEMENT WHICH INDICATED EACH VOTER SIGNED THE DESIGNATING PETITION IN HIS PRESENCE, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE, DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PROPERLY INVALIDATED BASED UPON THE CANDIDATE’S PARTICIPATION IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY (THIRD DEPT).
FIRING A SHOTGUN THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE CHILD WAS NOT HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).
Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents
THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) WHEN IT APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDED APARTMENTS AND A COSTCO RETAIL FACILITY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE APPROVAL AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).
THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGE ORDERS; THEREFORE THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS WERE WAIVED AND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS NOT A BREACH (THIRD DEPT). ​
BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED NEWSPAPERS, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD 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

ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION... THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE...