Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tereza Flusserova v. Julian Schnabel

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 7, 2012

TEREZA FLUSSEROVA,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JULIAN SCHNABEL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. JULIAN SCHNABEL, ET AL.,
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS.
RADOSLAW SZCZESNY, DOING BUSINESS AS MAIDEN BROOKLYN,
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS,
GENIE INDUSTRIES INC.,
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Flusserova v Schnabel

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 7, 2012

Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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 co-workers 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 AD2d 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.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2012

CLERK

20120207

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.