| Flusserova v Schnabel |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00844 [92 AD3d 464] |
| February 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Tereza Flusserova, Appellant, v Julian Schnabel et al.,Respondents/Third-Party Plaintiffs. Genie Industries Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, etal., Third-Party Defendants. |
—[*1] 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), forGenie 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 againstthem, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the release she signed was not "fairly andknowingly made" (see Johnson vLebanese Am. Univ., 84 AD3d 427, 430 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]). Plaintiff's claims that as a Czech immigrant with limited English she was takenadvantage of by defendants lack merit in any event. According to her own testimony, taken inEnglish 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, andcommunicated with her coworkers and her boyfriend in English. In addition, plaintiff testifiedthat 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 believedshe 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.Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.