From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaudhry v. Garvale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 10, 1999

June 21, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated August 31, 1998, which (1) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) denied their cross motion to strike the affirmative defense of release.

Jaghab Jaghab, Mineola, N.Y. (Kenneth S. Feraru, Erik J. Gerstenfeld, and Steven Miller of counsel), for appellants.

Huenke Rodriguez, Melville, N.Y. (Kenneth C. Rybacki, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the motion of the defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff Rafiq Ahmed Chaudhry, who was injured when the defendant's car struck his car, signed a general release releasing all claims of any kind, including personal injury and property damage claims, that he might have against the defendant. The general rule is that " 'a valid release which is clear and unambiguous on its face and which is knowingly and voluntarily entered into will be enforced as a private agreement between the parties' " ( Thailer v. LaRocca, 174 A.D.2d 731, 733, quoting Appel v. Ford Motor Co., 111 A.D.2d 731, 732; see, Mangini v. McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556). Where the language with respect to the parties' intent is clear and unambiguous, it will be given effect, regardless of one party's claim that he intended something else ( see, DeQuatro v. Zhen Yu Li, 211 A.D.2d 609; Thailer v. LaRocca, supra). Chaudhry's contention that he did not understand nor did he intend that the release would cover both personal injury and property damage claims is insufficient to defeat the defendant's prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, since the language of the release was plain and unambiguous. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were represented by counsel at the time the release was signed, and counsel had the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the release on behalf of the plaintiffs, and to advise them of the consequences of its execution.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Chaudhry v. Garvale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 1999
262 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Chaudhry v. Garvale

Case Details

Full title:RAFIQ AHMED CHAUDHRY, et al., appellants, v. CARA MARIE GARVALE, respondent

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

Date published: Jun 21, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 447

Citing Cases

Koufakis v. Siglag

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 15-108 (a), "[w]hen a release . . . is given to one of two or more…

Bain v. Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, P.L.

If "the language with respect to the parties' intent is clear and unambiguous, it will be given effect,…