Opinion
October 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The meaning and coverage of a general release depends on the controversy being settled and the purpose for which the release was actually given, and a release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not intend or desire to dispose of ( see, Cahill v. Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292, 299; Structural Processing Corp. v. Farboil Co., 234 A.D.2d 284; Lefrak SBN Assocs. v. Kennedy Galleries, 203 A.D.2d 256). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an issue of fact as to whether the release in question was intended to include the plaintiff's personal injury claim against the appellants ( see, Best v. Yutaka, 90 N.Y.2d 833; National Sur. Corp. v. Parisi Son Constr. Co., 239 A.D.2d 396; Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623).
Bracken, J. P., Miller, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.