From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hydrodyne Industries v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

March 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's execution of a general release serves as an absolute bar to the instant action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The conclusory allegations contained in the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss are inadequate to sustain its assertion that the release was the product of duress (see, Ermco Erectors v. Grand Iron Works, 93 A.D.2d 878, affd 60 N.Y.2d 634; see also, Powell v. Oman Constr. Co., 25 A.D.2d 566). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hydrodyne Industries v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Hydrodyne Industries v. Marine Midland Bank

Case Details

Full title:HYDRODYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, N.A.…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1986

Citations

118 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Short v. Keyspan Corporate Servs., LLC

Thus, plaintiff has failed to show that he acted promptly to avoid a release on the grounds of duress ( see…

Matter of Chamberlin v. Board of Education

Moreover, petitioner's contention that the releases were obtained by fraud or that he signed them under…