Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc.

89 A.D.3d 841, 932 N.Y.2d 346

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 841 (Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc.) 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

Calvaruso v. Hunter Ambulette-Ambulance, Inc., 89 A.D.3d 841, 932 N.Y.2d 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[842]*842The Supreme Court properly declined to set aside the release entered into by the parties on February 26, 2010. “A party seeking to set aside a release on the ground of fraud bears the burden of establishing ‘a material misrepresentation of fact, made with knowledge of its falsity, with intent to deceive, [and] justifiable reliance and damages’ ” (Liling v Segal, 220 AD2d 724, 726 [1995], quoting Mergler v Crystal Props. Assoc., 179 AD2d 177, 181 [1992]). Here, the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant belies her allegations of fraud and conclusively demonstrates that she does not have a viable cause of action to set aside the release on such grounds (see Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 794, 795 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this matter. Angiolillo, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[842]*842The Supreme Court properly declined to set aside the release entered into by the parties on February 26, 2010. “A party seeking to set aside a release on the ground of fraud bears the burden of establishing ‘a material misrepresentation of fact, made with knowledge of its falsity, with intent to deceive, [and] justifiable reliance and damages’ ” (Liling v Segal, 220 AD2d 724, 726 [1995], quoting Mergler v Crystal Props. Assoc., 179 AD2d 177, 181 [1992]). Here, the documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant belies her allegations of fraud and conclusively demonstrates that she does not have a viable cause of action to set aside the release on such grounds (see Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 794, 795 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this matter. Angiolillo, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 841, 932 N.Y.2d 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvaruso-v-hunter-ambulette-ambulance-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack