Flusserova v Schnabel

Flusserova v Schnabel 2012 NY Slip Op 00844 Decided on February 7, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department 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.
6749 104177/09

[*1]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.




Jaroslawicz & Jaros LLC, New York (David Jaroslawicz of
counsel), for appellant.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York (David J. Pfeffer of
counsel), for Julian Schnabel, 360 Development Corp., 360
West 11th 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 [*2]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