Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Percy M. HUGHES, et al., respondents, v. LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, appellant (and a third-party action).
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.
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, 184 N.Y.S.2d 348, 157 N.E.2d 505; see Alcantara v. 603-607 Realty Assocs., 273 A.D.2d 329, 710 N.Y.S.2d 99). 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, 751 N.Y.S.2d 254, quoting Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623, 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 60).
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 Realty Assocs., supra; Stone v. Aronwald & Pykett, 275 A.D.2d 706, 713 N.Y.S.2d 198), 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, 641 N.Y.S.2d 76).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 12, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)