Liotti v. Galasso, Langione & Botter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liotti v. Galasso, Langione & Botter

128 A.D.3d 912, 8 N.Y.S.3d 578

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

DecidedMay 20, 2015

Docket2013-08681

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 912 (Liotti v. Galasso, Langione & Botter) 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

Liotti v. Galasso, Langione & Botter, 128 A.D.3d 912, 8 N.Y.S.3d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered June 19, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) on the ground that the action was barred by a general release. The defendants presented evidence that a general release that was executed in their favor barred the instant action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). “A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” (Kaminsky v Gamache, 298 AD2d 361, 361 [2002]). “A release will not be treated lightly, and will be set aside by a court only for duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake” (Shklovskiy v Khan, 273 AD2d 371, 372 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that there was fraud, duress, or some other facts sufficient to void the release (see Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 109 AD3d 867 [2013]; Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994 [2013]; Gordon v Boyd, 96 AD3d 719, 720 [2012]).

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination. Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered June 19, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) on the ground that the action was barred by a general release. The defendants presented evidence that a general release that was executed in their favor barred the instant action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). “A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” (Kaminsky v Gamache, 298 AD2d 361, 361 [2002]). “A release will not be treated lightly, and will be set aside by a court only for duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake” (Shklovskiy v Khan, 273 AD2d 371, 372 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that there was fraud, duress, or some other facts sufficient to void the release (see Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc., 109 AD3d 867 [2013]; Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994 [2013]; Gordon v Boyd, 96 AD3d 719, 720 [2012]).

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination. Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 912, 8 N.Y.S.3d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liotti-v-galasso-langione-botter-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack