Matusovsky v. Merrill Lynch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that general release “written in plain English” and that covered “anything which has happened up to now” was sufficiently clear
• granting motion to dismiss based on release even where plaintiff not represented by an attorney
• citing, inter alia, I. Meyer Pincus & Assocs. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 936 F.2d 759, 762 (2d Cir.1991)
• where plaintiffs allegations are contradicted by documentary evidence incorporated by reference, those allegations are subject to dismissal
• “Although Matusovsky was not represented by an attorney, he had fair opportunity to obtain one prior to commencing the Civil Court action or during its pendency.”
• “Although [plaintiff] was not represented by an attorney, he had fair opportunity to obtain one prior to commencing [his civil] action or during its pendency.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).