Budnack v. Crymes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Budnack v. Crymes

288 A.D.2d 827, 732 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10520

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 827 (Budnack v. Crymes) 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

Budnack v. Crymes, 288 A.D.2d 827, 732 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed in the interest of justice without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries she sustained in an automobile accident, and Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of release. A release should not be set aside unless plaintiff demonstrates duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 563; Cramer v Newburgh Molded Prods., 228 AD2d 541, Iv denied 89 NY2d 803; Stone v National Bank & Trust Co., 188 AD2d 865, 867). Although plaintiff contends for the first time on appeal that the release should be set aside on the ground of mutual mistake and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985), we nevertheless review that contention in the interest of justice (see, White v Weiler, 255 AD2d 952, 952-953). We conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether there was a mutual mistake concerning the nature and extent of her injury (see, Carola v NKO Contr. Corp., 205 AD2d 931, 932; Horn v Timmons, 180 AD2d 717, 718). We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion and reinstate the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fricano, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed in the interest of justice without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries she sustained in an automobile accident, and Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of release. A release should not be set aside unless plaintiff demonstrates duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake (see, Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 563; Cramer v Newburgh Molded Prods., 228 AD2d 541, Iv denied 89 NY2d 803; Stone v National Bank & Trust Co., 188 AD2d 865, 867). Although plaintiff contends for the first time on appeal that the release should be set aside on the ground of mutual mistake and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985), we nevertheless review that contention in the interest of justice (see, White v Weiler, 255 AD2d 952, 952-953). We conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether there was a mutual mistake concerning the nature and extent of her injury (see, Carola v NKO Contr. Corp., 205 AD2d 931, 932; Horn v Timmons, 180 AD2d 717, 718). We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion and reinstate the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fricano, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 827, 732 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budnack-v-crymes-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack