Opinion ID: 619535
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alleged Lack of Consideration

Text: Wallach's contention that the Stipulation is void for lack of consideration is meritless. We note in passing that Wallach attached to his brief on appeal a document that he says was a second email sent to AUSA Massey on October 4, 2009which does not appear to be part of the record in the district courtin which Wallach accused the government of seriously violating the understandings and the stipulation agreement that [the government] signed with me and my attorney after my criminal case was dismissed. Were we to consider that document, we would be forced to conclude that Wallach's accusation that the government was not performing its obligations under the Stipulation revealed that there had in fact been consideration for Wallach's signing the Stipulation. However, we need not be concerned with the matter of whether there was consideration, because New York's General Obligations Law provides that [a] written instrument which purports to be a total or partial release of all claims . . . or a total or partial release of any particular claim . . . shall not be invalid because of the absence of consideration. . . . N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 15-303 (McKinney 2010). All of the prerequisites for application of this section are clearly met in the Stipulation. In that written documentwhich was titled Stipulation and ReleaseWallach expressly agree[d] that he would not contest the forfeiture of the Jammers to the United States (Stipulation, fifth WHEREAS ¶); he expressly agree[d] not to contest the administrative or judicial forfeiture of the Jammers to the United States ( id. ¶ 1); and he agreed to be barred from asserting any claim against the Government . . . in connection with . . . the acquisition and/or possession of the Jammers ( id. ¶ 2). These provisions unambiguously released any right Wallach may have had to oppose forfeiture of the Jammers to the government. And Wallach has acknowledged that the stipulation and release agreement sent to him by the government call[ed] for [his] total renouncement of ownership of the 20 jammers. (Wallach Aff. ¶ 37 (emphasis in original).) As a matter of New York law, therefore, no consideration for Wallach's agreement to this release was needed; and thus, if consideration was absent, its absence did not make the Stipulation invalid.