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
FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Horse Deemed a “Companion Animal”/Aggravated Cruelty to Animals Conviction Upheld
Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received
Community College Retaliated Against Union for Its Advocacy
Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding Which Had Been Dismissed—Current Proceeding Therefore Not Barred by Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
TEACHERS EMPLOYED AT STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WORKED FROM SEPTEMBER TO JUNE BUT WERE PAID AN ANNUAL SALARY; WHEN EXTRA SUMMER WORK WAS CANCELLED DUE TO COVID THEY APPLIED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS; BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT UNEMPLOYED THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT)
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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...