Moskowitz v. General Accident Insurance
179 A.D.2d 722, 579 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The court properly granted the defendant Krieger’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) insofar as it is asserted against him. The conclusory allegations submitted in support of the plaintiffs’ assertions of economic duress and overreaching were not supported by evidentiary facts sufficient to present a triable issue regarding the validity [723] of the release (see, Ermco Erectors v Grand Iron Works, 93 AD2d 878, affd 60 NY2d 634). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Moskowitz v. General Accident Insurance, 179 A.D.2d 722, 579 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).
179 A.D.2d 722 (Moskowitz v. General Accident Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alexander v. Alexander
2025 NY Slip Op 04758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Lapine v. Seinfeld
31 Misc. 3d 736 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)