Summary
In Kaminsky v. Gamache, 298 A.D.2d 361 [2d Dept 2002], a case cited by Costco, the Court found that a release involving a dispute arising out of an existing rental agreement did not resolve a later dispute concerning the tenant's present and future entitlement to occupy the premises in the absence of a new rental agreement.
Summary of this case from Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co.Opinion
2001-09379
Submitted September 13, 2002.
October 7, 2002.
In an action, in effect, pursuant to RPAPL article 6 to recover possession of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 4, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Kucker Bruh, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew B. Bittens of counsel), for appellants.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law (see Mangini v. McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556, 562). Where a release is unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the plain language of the agreement (see Shklovskiy v. Kahn, 273 A.D.2d 371, 372; see also JA Bayly Constr. Co. v. Village of Castleton-on-Hudson, 248 A.D.2d 766, 767; LK Holding Corp. v. Tropical Aquarium at Hicksville, 192 A.D.2d 643, 645). However, "`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'" (Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623, 624, quoting 49 N.Y. Jur, Release and Discharge, § 33, at 405). Indeed, "[t]he meaning and coverage of a general release necessarily depends upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was given. A release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not intend to cover" (Gale v. Citicorp, 278 A.D.2d 197; see Meyer v. Fanelli, 266 A.D.2d 361; Grab v. Jewish Assn. for Servs. for Aging, 254 A.D.2d 455, 456).
In this case, the release in question was part of an agreement that contemplated resolution of a dispute arising from the expiration of the parties' 1994 lease. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff landlords (hereinafter the Landlords) were to make specified repairs and improvements to the defendant's apartment, and the defendant (hereinafter the Tenant) was to pay rental arrears. Thereafter, the Landlords agreed to tender a new three-year lease at an agreed-upon rental; prior to the completion of repairs and the execution of the new lease, the Tenant was relieved of the obligation to pay any rent. It was in this context that the agreement provided that after the parties had performed their respective obligations thereunder, the Landlords would, inter alia, execute and deliver the new lease and covenant not to evict the Tenant except for a material violation of the new lease. The agreement made no provision for the eventuality, as ultimately occurred, that the parties would not complete their performance under the agreement, or fail to execute the new lease.
It is clear that the release in the agreement was not intended to resolve the instant controversy concerning the Tenant's present and future entitlement to occupy the premises in the absence of a new lease. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the release precluded this proceeding to recover possession of the apartment, and in awarding summary judgment to the Tenant, dismissing the complaint (see Alcantara v. 603-607 Realty Assocs., 273 A.D.2d 329, 330; Grab v. Jewish Assn. for Servs. for Aging, supra; NAB Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 276 A.D.2d 388, 390).
In light of our determination, we need not address the Landlords' remaining contentions.