465 F. App'x 50
2d Cir.2012Background
- Tromp sued the City of New York and officers for constitutional violations from a 2010 arrest (Tromp I).
- A Stipulation of Settlement and Order of Dismissal and a General Release followed in Tromp I, releasing claims against the City and officers.
- Tromp later filed a new suit (June 2011) alleging violations from a separate June 17, 2010 arrest.
- The district court dismissed the new suit as barred by the General Release from Tromp I.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing the release language and its scope under contract principles.
- Release language stated Tromp released claims ‘which were or could have been alleged’ in Tromp I, broadly barring related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the general release bar new claims arising from a pre-existent incident? | Tromp argues the release was limited to Tromp I's incident and not broader. | The release broad language bars all claims that could have been alleged, including this suit. | Yes; release barred the new claims. |
| Is the scope of release controlled by language that uses broad terms like 'could have been alleged'? | Language should be construed narrowly to limit to Tromp I. | General language must be construed strongly against releasor, covering all potential claims. | Broad language controls; claims barred. |
| Can the clause in the Stipulation limit the General Release’s scope? | Stipulation shows intent to resolve the issues in Tromp I only. | Stipulation does not limit the General Release’s broad scope; it merely evidences settlement of the litigation at hand. | Stipulation does not limit the release; it is not controlling. |
| Did the claims in the instant action arise from a pre-existent event that could have been claimed in Tromp I? | June 2010 incident is distinct; not covered by Tromp I. | The 2010 incident was similar and could have been alleged in Tromp I. | Yes; could have been alleged and are barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.A. Truck Renting Corp. v. Navistar, Inc., 916 N.Y.S.2d 194 (2d Dep't 2011) (general releases cover issues that might have been adjudicated)
- Lucio v. Curran, 2 N.Y.2d 157 (1956) (interpretation of release language under New York law)
- Wang v. Paterson, 2008 WL 5272736 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (plain language of release affects scope of claims barred)
- McReynolds v. Richards-Cantave, 588 F.3d 790 (2d Cir. 2009) (look to plain language of the release provision)
- Consorcio Prodipe v. Vinci, 544 F. Supp. 2d 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (release construed against releasor when general language used)
- Collins v. Harrison-Bode, 303 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2002) (contracts interpreted by general contract principles)