From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 01-01686

February 1, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Genesee County (Notaro, J.), entered October 16, 2000, dismissing the complaint following a nonjury trial.

RICHARD O. ROBINSON, P.C., BUFFALO (RICHARD O. ROBINSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

BOUVIER, O'CONNOR, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER, AND GORSKI, JJ.


It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint following a nonjury trial. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to set aside the release signed by Aleksandra Dempski (plaintiff). As the court properly determined, "[t]he release unequivocally releases any claim plaintiff[s] may have * * * for all `known and unknown' * * * injuries" ( Galatioto v. Hanes, 224 A.D.2d 923) and "plaintiff[s] cannot avoid the release by now claiming that [plaintiff] did not understand its terms" ( Finklea v. Heim, 262 A.D.2d 1056, 1057 ; see, DeQuatro v. Zhen Yu Li, 211 A.D.2d 609, 609-610). In any event, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the evidence at trial establishes that plaintiff had reported pain in her left knee to her treating physician prior to signing the release, and thus we conclude that the injury to plaintiff's knee was the "consequence, or sequela, of [a] known injury" ( Galatioto v. Hanes, supra, at 924; see, Finklea v. Heim, supra, at 1057).


Summaries of

Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Dempski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:ALEKSANDRA DEMPSKI AND ANDREW P. DEMPSKI, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. STATE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 1, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 275

Citing Cases

Putnam v. Kibler

Plaintiff failed to meet that burden. First, we agree with defendant that plaintiff "cannot avoid the effect…