Achache v. Och

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Achache v. Och

128 A.D.3d 563, 8 N.Y.S.3d 565

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

DecidedMay 21, 2015

Docket650737/12 15178 15177

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 563 (Achache v. Och) 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

Achache v. Och, 128 A.D.3d 563, 8 N.Y.S.3d 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered July 14, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court correctly found that, by waiting too long to file the instant action, plaintiffs waived their argument that they signed the subject release under duress (see e.g. Leader v Dinkler Mgt. Corp., 26 AD2d 683 [2d Dept 1966], affd 20 NY2d 393 [1967]). Plaintiffs might have been excused from suing for the first two years due to their fear of the look-back period (see Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 133 [1971]; Sosnoff v Carter, 165 AD2d 486, 492 [1st Dept 1991]). However, they delayed an additional 10 months beyond those two years (see Leader, 26 AD2d at 683 [six-month delay waived claim of duress]).

Assuming arguendo that triable issues exist as to unconscionability and overreaching (see CPLR 3211 [c]), plaintiffs’ ratification of the release bars them from challenging it on those grounds (see Allen v Riese Org., Inc., 106 AD3d 514, 517 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiffs’ claim that they received no benefits at all from the separation agreement and release is belied by the record. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered July 14, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court correctly found that, by waiting too long to file the instant action, plaintiffs waived their argument that they signed the subject release under duress (see e.g. Leader v Dinkler Mgt. Corp., 26 AD2d 683 [2d Dept 1966], affd 20 NY2d 393 [1967]). Plaintiffs might have been excused from suing for the first two years due to their fear of the look-back period (see Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 133 [1971]; Sosnoff v Carter, 165 AD2d 486, 492 [1st Dept 1991]). However, they delayed an additional 10 months beyond those two years (see Leader, 26 AD2d at 683 [six-month delay waived claim of duress]).

Assuming arguendo that triable issues exist as to unconscionability and overreaching (see CPLR 3211 [c]), plaintiffs’ ratification of the release bars them from challenging it on those grounds (see Allen v Riese Org., Inc., 106 AD3d 514, 517 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiffs’ claim that they received no benefits at all from the separation agreement and release is belied by the record. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 563, 8 N.Y.S.3d 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/achache-v-och-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack