Boshes v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 257, 714 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9848
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, [258]*258J.), entered on or about November 9, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed upon the basis of the clear and unambiguous releases executed by plaintiff, at least one of which was executed after plaintiff retained counsel. Defendants’ mere threat to breach a contract to pay commissions unless plaintiff signed the releases did not constitute duress (see, Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 NY2d 124, 130-131), and their purported knowledge of plaintiff’s alleged financial straits was merely “hard bargaining tactics” (Laub & Co. v Domansky, 172 AD2d 289). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Boshes v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 257, 714 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

276 A.D.2d 257 (Boshes v. Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related