holding that summary judgment based on release should not have been granted because “the affidavits and pretrial testimony presented on this motion for summary judgment fail to demonstrate conclusively that no issue of fact remains as to the intent of the parties”
How later courts described this case
- holding that summary judgment based on release should not have been granted because “the affidavits and pretrial testimony presented on this motion for summary judgment fail to demonstrate conclusively that no issue of fact remains as to the intent of the parties”
- holding that if “there was a conscious and deliberate intention to discharge liability from all consequences of an accident, the release will be sustained and bar any future claims of previously unknown injuries”
- holding that a party seeking to overturn a general release must show that "he did not know and could not know of the later revealed injuries"
- a release must be given its “full literal effect” unless it can be shown that the transaction to which the release is said to apply was not contemplated “despite the generality of the language in the release form”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Burke, J. (concurring).
I concur for reversal on the ground that, on this record, it is evident that this is not a case where there is only a known injury with unknown consequences. Rather, as Justice Sweeney, who originally approved the settlement, found, this is a case in which there is an injury which was unknown to the parties. There was a mutual mistake as to its existence as well as to the consequences of the unknown injury. This is, therefore, the rare case in which the release should be set aside.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bebgan, Keating and Jasen concur; Judge Bubke concurs in a memorandum.
Order reversed, without costs, and case remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion, herein.