LeMay v. H. W. Keeney, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1027Special Term should have granted Mobil’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as barred by the release. Where, as here, the language of a release is clear, effect will be given to the intention of the parties as indicated by the language employed and the fact that one of the parties may have intended something else is irrelevant (Matter of Schaefer, 18 NY2d 314, 317; Single v Whitmore, 307 NY 575; 19 NY Jur 2d, Compromise, Accord and Release, § 77, at 425-426). Since at the time he executed the release plaintiff was aware of the injuries for which he now seeks compensation and failed to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mangini v. McClurgNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- In re SchaeferNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Arcuri v. WeissSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Single v. WhitmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-SlatteryNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Thailer v. LaRoccaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Booth v. 3669 Delaware, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Clark v. Buffalo Wire Works Co., Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1998
- Pressley v. Rochester City School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.