AHMED v. UPS (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered June 27, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss.  A valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim that is the subject of the release (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [2011], citing Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v. Holme, 35 A.D.3d 93, 98, 824 N.Y.S.2d 210 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 804, 831 N.Y.S.2d 106, 863 N.E.2d 111 [2007]).  Here, the settlement agreement unambiguously released defendant from any and all claims by plaintiff connected to his employment with defendant.

Plaintiff contends that the settlement agreement is not enforceable because his then attorney advised him incorrectly that he could still pursue his discrimination and other claims that were unrelated to his unpaid wages claim.  Although a release may be set aside on the same grounds as any other contract, i.e., duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A., 17 N.Y.3d at 276, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995), here, plaintiff failed to present evidence that any of those defenses applied (see Fleming v. Ponziani, 24 N.Y.2d 105, 111, 299 N.Y.S.2d 134, 247 N.E.2d 114 [1969]).  Plaintiff did not provide evidence that defendant shared his apparent misunderstanding concerning the terms of the settlement agreement, which were clear.