Litchmore v. Sidney Martin Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Litchmore v. Sidney Martin Inc.

209 A.D.2d 675, 619 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11756

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 1994·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated May 26, 1993, as granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the releases executed by the plaintiff Claudette Litchmore are valid with regard to Claudette and Claude Litchmore’s claims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ execution of a general release serves as an absolute bar to the instant action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The plaintiffs failed to establish that the release was the product of fraud (see generally, L & K Holding Corp. v Tropical Aquarium, 192 AD2d 643, 645; Mergler v Crystal Props. Assocs., 179 AD2d 177, 181).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We note, however, that the Supreme Court will determine the fairness of the infant’s settlement at the hearing with respect to the infant’s compromise. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated May 26, 1993, as granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the releases executed by the plaintiff Claudette Litchmore are valid with regard to Claudette and Claude Litchmore’s claims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ execution of a general release serves as an absolute bar to the instant action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The plaintiffs failed to establish that the release was the product of fraud (see generally, L & K Holding Corp. v Tropical Aquarium, 192 AD2d 643, 645; Mergler v Crystal Props. Assocs., 179 AD2d 177, 181).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We note, however, that the Supreme Court will determine the fairness of the infant’s settlement at the hearing with respect to the infant’s compromise. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Litchmore v. Sidney Martin Inc., 209 A.D.2d 675, 619 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 675 (Litchmore v. Sidney Martin Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related