Opinion
2002-06160
Argued April 3, 2003.
May 12, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered June 7, 2002, which denied its motion for leave to serve an amended verified answer adding the affirmative defense of release, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Vincent D. McNamara, East Norwich, N.Y. (John F. Boland and Anthony Marino of counsel), for appellant.
Connelly Connelly, P.C., North Babylon, N.Y. (Peter R. Connelly of counsel), for respondents.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant Long Island University (hereinafter LIU), the general release executed in the prior Federal civil rights action was not intended to encompass the plaintiffs' subsequent State court personal injury action. The meaning and extent of a general release depends upon the controversy being settled and the purpose for which it is given, and "a release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose" (Cahill v. Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292, 299; see Alcantara v. 603-607 Realty Assocs., 273 A.D.2d 329). Moreover, "'if from the recitals therein or otherwise, it appears that the release is to be limited to only particular claims, demands or obligations, the instrument will be operative as to those matters alone'" (Kaminsky v. Gamache, 298 A.D.2d 361, quoting Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623, 624).
In this case, LIU's counsel notified the Magistrate assigned to the Federal civil rights action that the Federal action had been settled on December 29, 1997, or 10 days before the January 8, 1998, accrual of the plaintiffs' State court personal injury action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly found that the release was not intended to resolve the State court action (see Alcantara v. 603-607 Reality Assocs., supra; Stone v. Aronwald Pykett, 275 A.D.2d 706), and thus it properly denied LIU's motion for leave to serve an amended verified answer (see CPLR 3025[b]; Kallen v. Kasin, 226 A.D.2d 505).
FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.