Meyer v. Fanelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Fanelli

266 A.D.2d 361, 698 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 361 (Meyer v. Fanelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Fanelli, 266 A.D.2d 361, 698 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated August 4, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend a general release to exclude a debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and her husband for the education of the defendant’s son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘The meaning and coverage of a general release depends on the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which [362]*362the release was actually given * * * A release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of ” (Structural Processing Corp. v Farboil Co., 234 AD2d 284, quoting Lefrak SBN Assocs. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256, 257; see, Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299; B.B. & S. Treated Lbr. Co. v Groundwater Technology, 256 AD2d 430). The plaintiff averred that the release in this case, dated September 8, 1997, was prepared in the context of the settlement of her claim for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of the defendant’s negligence. The defendant failed to establish that the release was intended to relieve him of his obligation to repay loans made by the plaintiff and her husband for the education of the defendant’s son, Benjamin (see, Enock v National Westminster Bankcorp, 226 AD2d 235; Perritano v Town of Mamaroneck, 126 AD2d 623). Bracken, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated August 4, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend a general release to exclude a debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and her husband for the education of the defendant’s son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘The meaning and coverage of a general release depends on the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which [362]*362the release was actually given * * * A release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of ” (Structural Processing Corp. v Farboil Co., 234 AD2d 284, quoting Lefrak SBN Assocs. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256, 257; see, Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299; B.B. & S. Treated Lbr. Co. v Groundwater Technology, 256 AD2d 430). The plaintiff averred that the release in this case, dated September 8, 1997, was prepared in the context of the settlement of her claim for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of the defendant’s negligence. The defendant failed to establish that the release was intended to relieve him of his obligation to repay loans made by the plaintiff and her husband for the education of the defendant’s son, Benjamin (see, Enock v National Westminster Bankcorp, 226 AD2d 235; Perritano v Town of Mamaroneck, 126 AD2d 623). Bracken, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 361, 698 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-fanelli-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack