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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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] the 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] the 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.

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

266 A.D.2d 361 (Meyer v. Fanelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related