DECISION & ORDER (Motion #1) Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, after hearing oral arguments, and conducting a hearing it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3215(c) is hereby denied. This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Defendant’s vehicles on June 29, 2022. The Plaintiff subsequently sought initial treatment for injuries sustained as a result of the accident, and afterwards scheduled an appointment with the Law Office of Chelli and Bush for June 30, 2022. After scheduling this appointment, Plaintiff was contacted by a GEICO claims adjustor. After a brief conversation with the Plaintiff, the adjustor offered the Plaintiff $3000, which the Plaintiff accepted. The Plaintiff then met with attorneys from Chelli and Bush the following day, who served GEICO a letter of representation by certified mail. After undergoing further treatment, the Plaintiff learned that his injuries were more significant than initially thought, resulting in the Plaintiff undergoing, inter alia, right ankle surgery in November of 2020. Defendant brings the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §2111(a)(5), based on Plaintiff’s acceptance of the $3000 payment as part of the June 29, 2022, release. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the release was based on a mutual mistake as the scope of Plaintiff’s injuries were not fully known. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s motion must be denied. Upon reviewal of a motion to dismiss, a Court must afford the pleadings liberal construction. See Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 97 (1994). The trial Court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, affording every possible favorable inference to the plaintiff, and must determine only whether the alleged facts fit into any recognizable legal theory. See id. A release “is a jural act of high significance without which the settlement of disputes would be rendered all but impossible.” Mangini v. McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556, 563 (1969). “In general, a release will not be set aside in the absence of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake.” See Haynes v. Garez, 304 A.D.2d 714, 715 (2d Dep’t 2003); Mangini, 24 N.Y.2d at 563. It is well established that further litigation following a release should not be permitted “except under circumstances and under rules which would render any other result a grave injustice” (Gibli v. Kadosh, 279 A.D.2d 35, 38 (Id Dep’t 2000), quoting Mangini, 24 N.Y.2d at 563). “It is for this reason that the traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake, must be established or else the release stands. In the instance of mutual mistake, the burden of persuasion is on the one who would set the release aside.” (Mangini, 24 N.Y.2d at 563). Where an injured party executes a general release after sustaining an injury before knowing the full scope of their related injuries, New York courts have held these releases to be based on a mutual mistake. See e.g. Curry v. Episcopal Health Servs., 248 A.D.2d 662, 662-663 (2d Dep’t 1998); Haynes v. Garez, 304 A.D.2d 714, 715 (2d Dep’t 2003); Gibli v. Kadosh, 279 A.D.2d at 38. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff accepted the $3000 from GEICO two days after the accident, while receiving initial treatment for his injuries. The Plaintiff complained of pain to his left wrist, his knees, his shoulder, and his ankle. Prior to speaking with the GEICO adjustor, the Plaintiff had not undergone any X-Rays or CAT scans. The Plaintiff ultimately underwent right ankle arthroscopic surgery on November 22, 2022. It is further undisputed that GEICO made the offer of $3000 to the Plaintiff without any knowledge of the full scope of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Given that the full nature of Plaintiff’s injuries was not known by both parties at the time the release was signed, this Court finds that the release was signed based upon a mutual mistake. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3215(c) is hereby denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: July 20, 2023
