Gray v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gray v. Miller

248 A.D.2d 1000, 670 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of release. Defendants met their initial burden, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning her contention that defendants obtained the release through fraud [1001] or misrepresentation (see, Verstreate v Cohen, 242 AD2d 862). Plaintiff failed to offer proof in admissible form that she was misled by the statement of the “claims specialist” that, in his opinion, she did not have a serious injury. Therefore, “[p]laintiff has made no showing that [her] execution of the release was tainted by fraud, mutual mistake, duress or illegality” (K3 Equip. Corp. v Kintner, 233 AD2d 556, 558).

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, made 62 days after the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212 (a), is timely (see, Auger v State of New York, 236 AD2d 177; see also, Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 245 AD2d 164). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of release. Defendants met their initial burden, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning her contention that defendants obtained the release through fraud [1001] or misrepresentation (see, Verstreate v Cohen, 242 AD2d 862). Plaintiff failed to offer proof in admissible form that she was misled by the statement of the “claims specialist” that, in his opinion, she did not have a serious injury. Therefore, “[p]laintiff has made no showing that [her] execution of the release was tainted by fraud, mutual mistake, duress or illegality” (K3 Equip. Corp. v Kintner, 233 AD2d 556, 558).

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, made 62 days after the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212 (a), is timely (see, Auger v State of New York, 236 AD2d 177; see also, Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 245 AD2d 164). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Gray v. Miller, 248 A.D.2d 1000, 670 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 1000 (Gray v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related