You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Grab v. Jewish Ass'n for Services for Aging

Citations: 254 A.D.2d 455; 679 N.Y.S.2d 313; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11282

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 25, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a personal injury case, defendants Jewish Association for Services for Aging and Seagirt Housing Development Fund Corporation appealed a Supreme Court order from Queens County that denied their cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The order was affirmed, with costs awarded. The court emphasized that the interpretation of a general release hinges on the specific controversy being settled and the intentions of the parties involved. A release cannot be construed to encompass issues that the parties did not intend to resolve. The Supreme Court found a factual dispute regarding whether the release was meant to cover the plaintiff's personal injury claim against the defendants. The decision was supported by references to relevant case law, confirming that the court appropriately identified the issue of intent surrounding the release. Judges Bracken, Miller, O’Brien, and Santucci concurred in the ruling.

Legal Issues Addressed

Factual Dispute Regarding Release Intent

Application: The Supreme Court identified a factual dispute about whether the release was meant to cover the plaintiff's personal injury claim, necessitating further examination.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court found a factual dispute regarding whether the release was meant to cover the plaintiff's personal injury claim against the defendants.

Interpretation of General Release

Application: The court examined whether the general release was intended to cover the plaintiff's personal injury claim, emphasizing the importance of the parties' intentions and the specific controversy being settled.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that the interpretation of a general release hinges on the specific controversy being settled and the intentions of the parties involved.

Scope of a Release

Application: The court determined that a release cannot be construed to include claims that the parties did not intend to resolve, highlighting the necessity for clear intent.

Reasoning: A release cannot be construed to encompass issues that the parties did not intend to resolve.