In 2021, Plaintiff commenced two false-arrest actions against the City of New York [City], each stemming from separate arrests 2020. Plaintiff and City eventually settled the second of these actions by the parties signing a "release" freeing City from "any and all state and federal tort claims ... [Plaintiff] had, now has, or hereafter can, shall, or may have ... upon or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever that occurred through the date of this RELEASE, except as indicated below, if applicable."
Plaintiff signed the document without excluding any claims, and his attorney notarized his signature.
Plaintiff subsequently attempted to litigate the first alleged false-arrest action against City [the instant litigation]. Supreme Court, however, refused to enforce the release earlier executed by Plaintiff with respect to the first false-arrest action over City's objection based on the Supreme Court's conclusion that the parties intended to settle only the second false-arrest action.
City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling and the Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's decision, two Justices dissenting.
The Court of Appeals sustained the Appellate Division's ruling, explaining City had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to litigation involving the first false allegation based on the clear language of the release Plaintiff had earlier signed and Plaintiff failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition.
The Court of Appeals explained that "the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the clear language of the release, and [Plaintiff] failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition".
The Court of Appeals' decision, in a footnote, noted that Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel,* could have excluded the first alleged false arrest cause of action from the release by the simple act of listing it in the space provided for that purpose, Plaintiff signed the release without doing so.
This signing, said the Court was "an objective manifestation of assent that is binding upon [Plaintiff] notwithstanding any unilateral mistake or subsequent regret on his part."
Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.
* Because Plaintiff was represented by the same attorney in both his false-arrest actions, the Court of Appeals, in a footnote, indicated that it had "no occasion to opine on whether a similar result would obtain had [Plaintiff] been represented by different counsel in each action when he executed the release".