Lifeline for the Old in Jerusalem v. American Friends of Lifeline for the Old in Israel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lifeline for the Old in Jerusalem v. American Friends of Lifeline for the Old in Israel, Inc.

205 A.D.2d 327, 614 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6025

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 1994·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered August 17, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the evidence which demonstrates that prior to the execution of the release, the parties discussed and negotiated issues which concerned, inter alia, the donor lists of American Friends of Lifeline, and the usage of the names and good will of "Lifeline” and Myriam Mendilow, the claims raised concerning those very issues are barred by the release (see, Lucio v Curran, 2 NY2d 157, 161-162). Moreover, even if the exact claims in the third through seventh and ninth through eleventh causes of action in the complaint were not expressly raised prior to the execution of the release, it is clear that plaintiff was well aware of these claims before it executed the release, and could have modified the language of the release if it so desired (see, Stone v National Bank & Trust Co., 188 AD2d 865). We further note that the general release at issue is clear and unambiguous and the court appropriately determined the parties’ intent therein as a matter of law (see, Matter of Schaefer, 18 NY2d 314, 317).

Thus, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction was properly denied and defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint properly granted. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered August 17, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the evidence which demonstrates that prior to the execution of the release, the parties discussed and negotiated issues which concerned, inter alia, the donor lists of American Friends of Lifeline, and the usage of the names and good will of "Lifeline” and Myriam Mendilow, the claims raised concerning those very issues are barred by the release (see, Lucio v Curran, 2 NY2d 157, 161-162). Moreover, even if the exact claims in the third through seventh and ninth through eleventh causes of action in the complaint were not expressly raised prior to the execution of the release, it is clear that plaintiff was well aware of these claims before it executed the release, and could have modified the language of the release if it so desired (see, Stone v National Bank & Trust Co., 188 AD2d 865). We further note that the general release at issue is clear and unambiguous and the court appropriately determined the parties’ intent therein as a matter of law (see, Matter of Schaefer, 18 NY2d 314, 317).

Thus, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction was properly denied and defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint properly granted. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Lifeline for the Old in Jerusalem v. American Friends of Lifeline for the Old in Israel, Inc., 205 A.D.2d 327, 614 N.Y.S.2d 124, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 327 (Lifeline for the Old in Jerusalem v. American Friends of Lifeline for the Old in Israel, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related