SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United Stаtes Court of Appeаls for the Second Circuit,
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this appeal be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
On April 7, 2000, Sportiquе Motors, Ltd. (“Sportique”), a Jаguar dealership, brought this action against Jaguar Cаrs, Inc. (“Jaguar”). The Complaint alleged that Jaguar’s wаrranty reimbursements to Sportique from 1996 to 1999 were defiсient and in violation of Section 465 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. On January 18, 2002, Jaguar filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Sрortique is barred from bringing this action by the parties’ Mutual Release and Termination Agreement, which both parties signed upon terminating their franchise relationshiр, and which stated that the parties “relinquish any and all rights [they] may have had under [their] Dealer Agreement. ...” Sportique also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the release was invalid beсause it violates Section 463(2)(£) of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.
On Marсh 20, 2002, the District Court granted Jaguar’s motion for summary judgment. See Sportique Motors, Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.,
Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court, id., the judgment of the District Court is hereby Affirmed.