Arfa v. Zamir
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- LMM Capital Partners, LLC v. Mill Point Capital, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- CyCan, LLC v. Palladian Health, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- RKI Construction, LLC v. WDF Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Madison Capital Holdings LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Newman v. Greystone & Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Harmit Realties LLC v. 835 Avenue of the Americas, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Engel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Engel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Ward v. TheLadders.com, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- B&C Realty, Co. v. 159 Emmut Properties LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- B&C Realty, Co. v. 159 Emmut Properties LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Cobalt Partners v. GSC Capital Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cobalt Partners v. GSC Capital Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Pappas v. Tzolis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
In June 2005, plaintiffs Rachel Arfa and Alexander Shpigel executed a general agreement with defendant Gadi Zamir regarding management of their real estate business. The agreement contained a provision in which each party released the others and their related entities from “any and all claims, demands, actions, rights, suits, liabilities, interests and causes of action, known or unknown, which they have ever had, have or may now have, which in any way pertain to or arise from any matters, facts, occurrences, actions or omissions which occurred prior to” the date of the contract. This general release, which plaintiffs allege was part of a negotiated agreement meant to ease an antagonistic relationship and keep Zamir “from
Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the release was induced by a separate fraud (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269 [2011] [decided today]). Additionally, they have failed to allege that they justifiably relied on Zamir’s fraudulent misstatements in executing the release. By their own admission, plaintiffs, who are sophisticated parties, had ample indication prior to June 2005 that defendant was not trustworthy, yet they elected to release him from the very claims they now bring without investigating the extent of his alleged misconduct (see Centro, 17 NY3d at 278; DDJ Mgt., LLC v Rhone Group L.L.C., 15 NY3d 147, 153-154 [2010]). Dismissal of plaintiffs’ fraud cause of action is therefore appropriate.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.