Metwally v. City of New York

Background

Osama Metwally brought this action under the Constitution, enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City of New York. The action concerned a September 4, 2016 incident and included a claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court had previously dismissed the claims against six individual police officers because Metwally did not timely serve them, leaving the claim against the City.

Metwally had earlier sued the City and others over a different June 12, 2014 incident. The parties settled that earlier related proceeding on January 9, 2020, for $18,000. Metwally signed a general release covering claims against the City and its officers, employees, agents, and representatives, except for claims listed in the release. No claims were listed. The City paid the settlement amount, and the opinion states that there was no evidence Metwally returned or offered to return the money.

When the City later asked Metwally to dismiss this action based on the release, he refused. He argued that his former attorney, Rehan Nazrali, had accidentally submitted the wrong page of the release and had therefore failed to include the cases Metwally intended to exclude.

Proceedings Before the District Court

The City moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 56. The magistrate judge recommended granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. Metwally filed objections. Judge Daniels reviewed the objections, overruled them, and adopted the report and recommendation in full.

Arguments and Analysis

The City argued that the release’s clear language barred Metwally’s claims. Metwally argued that the release was ambiguous and that his former attorney lacked authority to settle claims in cases where the attorney did not represent him.

The court applied New York contract law because the parties relied on it in addressing the release. It held that settlement agreements and general releases are contracts and that an unambiguous release must be enforced according to its terms. The court found that Metwally personally signed the release, that the release covered all claims against the City except those listed, and that no claims were listed. It therefore held that the release was clear and unambiguous and released claims that accrued before January 9, 2020.

The court rejected Metwally’s argument that the release should be reformed because of a mutual mistake, sometimes called a writing error. The court found that Metwally did not claim the parties had mutually agreed to exclude this lawsuit. Instead, the court characterized any mistake as one made by Metwally and his attorney.

The court also rejected the unilateral-mistake argument. It stated that New York law generally does not permit changing or rescinding a contract based on unilateral mistake alone, and that Metwally had not alleged fraud by the City. The court further concluded that Metwally had offered no evidence that Nazrali lacked apparent authority to act on his behalf in executing the release.

Finally, the court rejected Metwally’s argument that the City had waived the release defense by not asserting it in its answer. The court found no alleged prejudice, bad-faith delay, or undue delay that prevented it from considering the defense at the summary-judgment stage.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment based on the release. Because it found that Metwally had released his claim against the City, the court expressly stated that it did not consider the merits of the Monell claim or the City’s Rule 12(c) motion. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report in full, granted the motion for summary judgment, and directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case.