Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tereza Flusserova, Plaintiff–Appellant, v.
Julian Schnabel, et al., Defendants–Respondents. _____ Julian Schnabel, et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs. v. Radoslaw Szczesny, doing business as Maiden Brooklyn, Third Party Defendants, Genie Industries Inc., Third Party Defendant–Respondent.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (David J. Pfeffer of counsel), for Julian Schnabel, 360 Development Corp., 360 West 11 th LLC, and Stella Maris, Inc., respondents.
Gallagher, Walker, Bianco & Plastaras LLC, Mineola (Michael R. Walker of counsel), for Genie Industries Inc., respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered December 2, 2010, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In opposition to defendants' prima facie showing that plaintiff released her claims against them, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the release she signed was not “fairly and knowingly made” (see Johnson v. Lebanese Am. Univ., 84 AD3d 427, 430 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Plaintiff's claims that as a Czech immigrant with limited English she was taken advantage of by defendants lack merit in any event. According to her own testimony, taken in English in the absence of an interpreter, English is only one of several languages plaintiff speaks; she has written college-level papers in English, translated English for Czech speakers, and communicated with her coworkers and her boyfriend in English. In addition, plaintiff testified that she read the release and did not understand it, but she made no effort to have someone read and explain it to her before signing it (see Shklovskiy v. Khan, 273 A.D.2d 371 [2000] ). Accordingly, her claim that she believed she was signing a receipt for the money she was paid does not avail her.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 6749
Decided: February 07, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)