Aharon v. Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aharon v. Kim

205 A.D.2d 719, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 719 (Aharon v. Kim) 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

Aharon v. Kim, 205 A.D.2d 719, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Kwang Kim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 2, 1993, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him on the ground that he and the plaintiffs entered into a binding release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the trial court correctly concluded, the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to the appellant’s motion clearly raise an issue of fact with regard to their claim that execution of the release was procured by fraud (see, Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217; cf., Sofio v Hughes, 162 AD2d 518). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Kwang Kim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 2, 1993, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him on the ground that he and the plaintiffs entered into a binding release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the trial court correctly concluded, the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to the appellant’s motion clearly raise an issue of fact with regard to their claim that execution of the release was procured by fraud (see, Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217; cf., Sofio v Hughes, 162 AD2d 518). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 719, 614 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aharon-v-kim-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack