History
  • No items yet
midpage
31 A.D.3d 756
N.Y. App. Div.
2006

ZICHRON ACHEINU LEVY, INC., Respondent, v LILLIAN ILOWITZ et al., Defendants, and UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

820 NYS2d 601

In an action to recover life insurance premium payments, the defendant United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated July 13, 2005, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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 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” (Ofman v Campos, 12 AD3d 581, 581 [2004], quoting Lefrak SBN Assoc. v Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256, 557 [1994]; see Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299 [1959]; Wise v McCalla, 24 AD3d 435, 437 [2005]; Hughes v Long Is. Univ., 305 AD2d 462 [2003]). Contrary to the appellant‘s contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the release executed by the plaintiff, which was specifically limited to the plaintiff‘s claim with respect to policy number UY002344NL, was not intended to preclude this action, which concerns policy number UH007884NL. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

In the Matter of JOSEPH BROOKS, Respondent, v MARISSA BROOKS, Also Known as MARISSA POLLACHEK, Appellant. [818 NYS2d 465]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelley, R.), dated August 12, 2005, as, without a hearing, granted the father‘s motion for summary judgment on the petition and awarded him custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County,

Case Details

Case Name: Zichron Acheinu Levy, Inc. v. Ilowitz
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jul 25, 2006
Citations: 31 A.D.3d 756; 820 N.Y.S.2d 601
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In