general release clause in New York

2025Preliminarily, plaintiff makes no claim that the general release "was procured by fraud, duress, overreaching, illegality or mutual mistake" ( Allen v Riese Org., Inc ., 106 AD3d 514 , 516 [1st Dept 2013]).

2020Nevertheless, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by presenting the general release and waiver of liability signed by the plaintiff ( see Deutsch v Woodridge Segway, LLC , 117 AD3d 776 ).

2020"Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release'" ( Herson v Kalenscher-Kirschenfeld , 164 AD3d 481 , 482, quoting Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276 ). " If the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a jural act binding on the parties'" ( Burnside 711, LLC v Amerada Hess Corp. , 175 AD3d 557 , 559, quoting Nucci v Nucci , 118 AD3d 762, 763 ).

2020"Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release'" ( Herson v Kalenscher-Kirschenfeld , 164 AD3d 481 , 482, quoting Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276 ). " If the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a jural act binding on the parties'" ( Burnside 711, LLC v Amerada Hess Corp. , 175 AD3d 557 , 559, quoting Nucci v Nucci , 118 AD3d 762, 763 ).

2014Riedl Constr, Inc. v *758 Homeyer, 105 AD3d 1391 [2013]; Orangetown Home Improvements, LLC v Kiernan, 84 AD3d at 904).

1986Clare’s Hosp., supra).

1981(Compare, e.g., Matter of Nelson, 51 Misc 2d 375 ; Matter of Swords, 120 Misc 427 , affd 208 App Div 852 , with Matter of Shack, 207 Misc 953 ; see, also, Schoonmaker v Crounse, 261 App Div 77 ; Titus v Bassi, 182 App Div 387 .) Other courts have looked to the relationship between and conduct of the parties, both before and after executing the separation agreement, in order to ascertain whether there was a revocation.

1981(Compare, e.g., Matter of Nelson, 51 Misc 2d 375 ; Matter of Swords, 120 Misc 427 , affd 208 App Div 852 , with Matter of Shack, 207 Misc 953 ; see, also, Schoonmaker v Crounse, 261 App Div 77 ; Titus v Bassi, 182 App Div 387 .) Other courts have looked to the relationship between and conduct of the parties, both before and after executing the separation agreement, in order to ascertain whether there was a revocation.

1981(Compare, e.g., Matter of Nelson, 51 Misc 2d 375 ; Matter of Swords, 120 Misc 427 , affd 208 App Div 852 , with Matter of Shack, 207 Misc 953 ; see, also, Schoonmaker v Crounse, 261 App Div 77 ; Titus v Bassi, 182 App Div 387 .) Other courts have looked to the relationship between and conduct of the parties, both before and after executing the separation agreement, in order to ascertain whether there was a revocation.

1981(Compare, e.g., Matter of Nelson, 51 Misc 2d 375 ; Matter of Swords, 120 Misc 427 , affd 208 App Div 852 , with Matter of Shack, 207 Misc 953 ; see, also, Schoonmaker v Crounse, 261 App Div 77 ; Titus v Bassi, 182 App Div 387 .) Other courts have looked to the relationship between and conduct of the parties, both before and after executing the separation agreement, in order to ascertain whether there was a revocation.

1981(Compare, e.g., Matter of Nelson, 51 Misc 2d 375 ; Matter of Swords, 120 Misc 427 , affd 208 App Div 852 , with Matter of Shack, 207 Misc 953 ; see, also, Schoonmaker v Crounse, 261 App Div 77 ; Titus v Bassi, 182 App Div 387 .) Other courts have looked to the relationship between and conduct of the parties, both before and after executing the separation agreement, in order to ascertain whether there was a revocation.

1981The clause provided that the husband released “ ‘any and all right, title and interest in and to the property or estate of the Wife (whether now owned or hereafter acquired), her executors and administrators, heirs at law and pext of kin, which the husband now has or may have’ including any right to take against her will under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law.” ( 18 NY2d, at p 286 .) This language was found to be “inconsistent with the survival of the testamentary gifts to the husband.” ( 18 NY2d, at p 286 .) In reaching this conclusion, this court placed primary reliance on Matter of Sil

1980I agree that there is a difference between the general release of a claim under a contract and the cancellation of a contract, but cannot agree to the result reached by the majority because it ignores the fact that the demand for arbitration in the instant case refers not to one but to two contracts, one of which, unless we are flatly to overrule Matter of Minkin (Halperin) ( 304 NY 617 ), Matter of Binger (Thatcher) ( 304 NY 627 ), and Matter of Bronston (Glassman) ( 10 NY2d 158 ), has been canceled.

1980I agree that there is a difference between the general release of a claim under a contract and the cancellation of a contract, but cannot agree to the result reached by the majority because it ignores the fact that the demand for arbitration in the instant case refers not to one but to two contracts, one of which, unless we are flatly to overrule Matter of Minkin (Halperin) ( 304 NY 617 ), Matter of Binger (Thatcher) ( 304 NY 627 ), and Matter of Bronston (Glassman) ( 10 NY2d 158 ), has been canceled.

1980I agree that there is a difference between the general release of a claim under a contract and the cancellation of a contract, but cannot agree to the result reached by the majority because it ignores the fact that the demand for arbitration in the instant case refers not to one but to two contracts, one of which, unless we are flatly to overrule Matter of Minkin (Halperin) ( 304 NY 617 ), Matter of Binger (Thatcher) ( 304 NY 627 ), and Matter of Bronston (Glassman) ( 10 NY2d 158 ), has been canceled.