6340 Transit Road, Inc. v. Unigard Security Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

6340 Transit Road, Inc. v. Unigard Security Insurance

209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1014

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 921 (6340 Transit Road, Inc. v. Unigard Security Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

6340 Transit Road, Inc. v. Unigard Security Insurance, 209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted [922]*922and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff accepted $452,000 in final settlement of its claim and signed a release to that effect. Its causes of action are barred by its negotiation and execution of the release (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 616). The release was not obtained through economic duress; plaintiff was not compelled to agree to the terms of the settlement "by means of a wrongful threat which precluded the exercise of its free will” (Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 40 NY2d 955, 956). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted [922]*922and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff accepted $452,000 in final settlement of its claim and signed a release to that effect. Its causes of action are barred by its negotiation and execution of the release (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 616). The release was not obtained through economic duress; plaintiff was not compelled to agree to the terms of the settlement "by means of a wrongful threat which precluded the exercise of its free will” (Muller Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 40 NY2d 955, 956). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/6340-transit-road-inc-v-unigard-security-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack