Anthony Cortino v. London Terrace Gardens

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for property damage and emotional distress caused by the flooding of his apartment.
Defendant thereafter commenced a non-payment proceeding in New York County Civil Housing Court, and plaintiff answered and
interposed a counterclaim alleging breach of the warranty of habitability. Settlement negotiations followed. A stipulation
was thereafter executed which provided plaintiff with a different apartment, a reduction in rent, and further provided mutual
general releases for all pending and future claims. Defendants thereafter moved to amend their answer in the Supreme Court
action to assert the affirmative defense of release. Plaintiff opposed, contending that there was no intent to settle the
Supreme Court action in conjunction with the Civil Court action. The court granted the motion to amend the answer, and, finding
the language of the release to be broad enough to cover the claims asserted in the Supreme Court action, granted summary judgment
dismissing the complaint. We agree. A party who enters into a plain and unambiguous contract cannot avoid it by stating that he erred in understanding its terms.
Relief from a release may not be granted on the basis of vague or conclusory allegations of error (see Touloumis v. Chalem,
156 A.D.2d 230). A court can modify or void a release as to a particular claim only where there is evidence that the written
release does not represent the intent of the parties such as where there is a mistake as to the extent of damages sustained
(DeCosta v. Williams, 119 Misc. 2d 314), or where there are specific exclusions or limitations in the release demonstrating
an intent to limit its effect (Herman v. Malamed, 110 A.D.2d 575). As the stipulation was not a standard pre-printed form
and the parties were represented by counsel, the release was clearly the product of careful bargaining (Mar Co. Export, Inc.,
v. Banco De Santander-Puerto Rico, 99 A.D.2d 403). Nor is there a showing to justify the allegations of inequitable conduct
by presentation of clear and convincing evidence of fraud coupled with unilateral mistake (Ogdensburg Building Supply Co.,
Inc., v. Lumber Mutual Ins. Co., 102 A.D.2d 960).