Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Carpenter v. Machold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 21, 1982 · Kane

86 A.D.2d 727; 447 N.Y.S.2d 46; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15285

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, as of the Estate of Darryl F. Zanuck, Deceased v. Genevieve Gillaizeau (2d Cir. 1985)
Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. (3d Cir. 1995)
Digizip.com, Inc. v. Verizon Services Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. UGI Utilities, Inc. (2d Cir. 2005)
Sterling Drug Inc. v. Bayer AG (District Court, S.D. New York 1992)
US for Use of Falco Const. v. Summit Gen. Contr. (District Court, E.D. New York 1991)
Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc. v. Leasure (In re Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1991)
United States ex rel. Falco Construction Corp. v. Summit General Contracting Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1991)
Branko International, Inc. v. Saudi Arabian Airlines (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Cathy Daniels, Ltd. (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Gerlach v. the Horn & Hardart Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
State v. Upstate Storage, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
A.F.L. Falck, S.P.A. v. E.A. Karay Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
Barrett v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
Derry Finance N v. v. Christiana Companies, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1985)
Bank of America National Trust & Saving Ass'n v. Gillaizeau (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank (10th Cir. 2004)
Rockefeller University v. Tishman Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cerrito, J.), entered October 7, 1980 in Fulton County, which denied defendant Machold’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as against her. Plaintiff John Carpenter, while doing repair work at defendant Machold’s home, slipped and fell off a ladder. He thereafter signed a document which reads as follows: “To Marguerite Machold I do not intend to sue you for my injuries of February 23, 1978 at your house.” Plaintiff subsequently commenced a lawsuit against defendant Machold and others for injuries sustained in the fall. Defendant Machold moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that plaintiff had released her from liability by execution of the afore-mentioned document. The motion was denied. We concur with the finding of Special Term. To constitute a release, a writing must contain an expression of a present intention to renounce a claim (Pratt Plumbing & Heating v Mastropole, 68 AD2d 973). It need not be supported by consideration. It suffices if it is in writing (General Obligations Law, § 15-303). In arriving at the meaning of a written instrument, the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used will be imparted to it. An analysis of the language of the instant document indicates that the promisor had a present intention not to sue defendant Machold. However, the document bears no words of release, discharge or renunciation as are required in a writing purporting to be a release. The words, “I do not intend” cannot be equated with the required explicit, unequivocal statement of a present promise to release defendant from liability. Order affirmed, without costs. Main, Mikoll and Weiss, JJ., concur; Kane, J. P., and Yesawich, Jr., J., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Kane, J. P.

Dissenting Opinion

Kane, J. P. (dissenting).

We disagree. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the majority, we find that the writing in question unequivocally expressed a present intention to release defendant Machold from any liability for injuries sustained by plaintiff John Carpenter at defendant’s home. Accordingly, the subject writing constitutes a release barring the action against defendant Machold (Pratt Plumbing & Heating v Mastropole, 68 AD2d 973). We would, therefore, reverse the order, grant the motion, and dismiss the complaint as against this defendant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.