Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

291 A.D.2d 911, 738 N.Y.S.2d 275, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1027

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 911 (Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) 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

Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 291 A.D.2d 911, 738 N.Y.S.2d 275, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County (Notaro, J.), entered October 16, 2000, dismissing the complaint following a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint following a nonjury trial. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to set aside the release signed by Aleksandra Dempski (plaintiff). As the court properly determined, “[t]he release unequivocally releases any claim plaintiff[s] may have * * * for all ‘known and unknown’ * * * injuries” (Galatioto v Hanes, 224 AD2d 923, 923) and “plaintiff[s] cannot avoid the release by now claiming that [plaintiff] did not understand its terms” (Finklea v Heim, 262 AD2d 1056, 1057; see, DeQuatro v Zhen Yu Li, 211 AD2d 609, 609-610). In any event, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the evidence at trial establishes that plaintiff had reported pain in her left knee to her treating physician prior to signing the release, and thus we conclude that the injury to plaintiff’s knee was the “consequence, or sequela, of [a] known injury” (Galatioto v Hanes, supra at 924; see, Finklea v Heim, supra at 1057). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County (Notaro, J.), entered October 16, 2000, dismissing the complaint following a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint following a nonjury trial. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to set aside the release signed by Aleksandra Dempski (plaintiff). As the court properly determined, “[t]he release unequivocally releases any claim plaintiff[s] may have * * * for all ‘known and unknown’ * * * injuries” (Galatioto v Hanes, 224 AD2d 923, 923) and “plaintiff[s] cannot avoid the release by now claiming that [plaintiff] did not understand its terms” (Finklea v Heim, 262 AD2d 1056, 1057; see, DeQuatro v Zhen Yu Li, 211 AD2d 609, 609-610). In any event, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the evidence at trial establishes that plaintiff had reported pain in her left knee to her treating physician prior to signing the release, and thus we conclude that the injury to plaintiff’s knee was the “consequence, or sequela, of [a] known injury” (Galatioto v Hanes, supra at 924; see, Finklea v Heim, supra at 1057). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 911, 738 N.Y.S.2d 275, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dempski-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack