Rivera v. Vickers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Vickers

72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 807 (Rivera v. Vickers) 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

Rivera v. Vickers, 72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 31, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ second affirmative defense. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disburse[808]*808ments. On the particular facts of this case it appears that the release signed by plaintiff Khan was obtained under circumstances which indicate unfairness, overreaching and unconscionability and, therefore, is void (see Fleming v Ponziani, 24 NY2d 105). Plaintiff Khan was induced to sign the release at the home of the defendants five months after he was injured in the fire which is the basis of this action. He was not represented by counsel and was suffering from vision impairment as a result of the fire and did not read the release. Instead, he relied on defendants’ explanation of the document and was misled as to its true meaning. Under these facts the affirmative defense of release cannot be permitted to put an end to this plaintiff’s cause of action. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 31, 1979, which, after a hearing, granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ second affirmative defense. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disburse[808]*808ments. On the particular facts of this case it appears that the release signed by plaintiff Khan was obtained under circumstances which indicate unfairness, overreaching and unconscionability and, therefore, is void (see Fleming v Ponziani, 24 NY2d 105). Plaintiff Khan was induced to sign the release at the home of the defendants five months after he was injured in the fire which is the basis of this action. He was not represented by counsel and was suffering from vision impairment as a result of the fire and did not read the release. Instead, he relied on defendants’ explanation of the document and was misled as to its true meaning. Under these facts the affirmative defense of release cannot be permitted to put an end to this plaintiff’s cause of action. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-vickers-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack