Booth v. 3669 Delaware, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
88 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bain v. Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, P. L. (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
- 1125 Morris Ave. Realty LLC v. Title Issues Agency LLC (New York Supreme Court 2023)
- Frydman v. Akerman (District Court, S.D. New York 2017)
- Morefun Co., Ltd. v. Mario Badescu Skin Care Inc. (2d Cir. 2014)
- Inter-Reco, Inc. v. Lake Park 175 Froehlich Farm, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Inter-Reco, Inc. v. Lake Park 175 Froehlich Farm, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Consorcio Prodipe, S.A. De C v. v. Vinci, S.A. (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. Gateway, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2007)
- Medinol Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- In re WorldCom, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Media Group, Inc. v. Tuppatsch (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2003)
- Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens Inc. (2d Cir. 2000)
- Summit Mountain Holding Group v. Summit Village Development Lender 1 (District Court, D. Utah 2024)
- Barshay v. Naithani (2d Cir. 2023)
- Putnam v. Kibler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- MOORE v. COHEN (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Stevens v. Town of Chenango (Forks) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Nelson v. Lattner Enterprises (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Nelson v. Lattner Enterprises (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Litvinov v. Hodson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Paige v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Gohar v. Albany Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Schneier v. Clermont York Assoc., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
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
*935 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a drywall installer, injured his knee while working on stilts in the course of his employment. Ten months after his injury, plaintiff signed a document captioned “release of all claims," offered by a representative of defendant Benderson Development’s insurance carrier. That document, by its terms, relieved both Benderson and defendant Northeast Mechanical of “any and every claim * * * or cause of action of whatever kind and nature * * * especially the liability arising from” plaintiff’s accident, in exchange for the sum of $3,000. It also stated: “you are making a final settlement, this is a RELEASE. READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING.”
Subsequently, and notwithstanding the release, plaintiff brought claims against defendants alleging negligence and violations of several Labor Law provisions. At Supreme Court, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 on grounds of the release. Plaintiff, urging that the release had been obtained through fraud, opposed that motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on liability. Finding questions of fact surrounding the validity of the release, Supreme Court denied defendants’ motions and plaintiff’s cross motions. On defendants’ appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the release was valid and binding. We agree.
Where, as here, the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a “jural act” binding on the parties (see, e.g., Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 563). While a release obtained through fraud may be rendered invalid, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue concerning the validity of the release. Therefore, consistent with the public policy favoring enforcement of settlements (see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603, 616), the release plaintiff signed should be enforced according to its terms, and plaintiffs claim dismissed (see, by contrast, Best v Yutaka, 90 NY2d 833, 834).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.