Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 6, 2004 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated December 1, 2004; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended order dated December 1, 2004 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
"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" ( Lefrak SBN Assoc. v. Kennedy Galleries, 203 AD2d 256, 257 [citation omitted]; see Ofman v. Campos, 12 AD3d 581, 581-582; Demaria v. Brenhouse, 277 AD2d 344; Alcantara v. 603-607 Realty Assoc., 273 AD2d 329, 330; Meyer v. Fanelli, 266 AD2d 361; Grab v. Jewish Assn. for Servs. for Aging, 254 AD2d 455, 456). Here, the general release of liability was part of a severance agreement with the injured plaintiff's employer, an affiliate of the defendant Diamond Sugar Co., Inc., and contained no clear or specific language regarding personal injury claims ( see e.g. Bugel v. WPS Niagara Props., Inc., 19 AD3d 1081, 1082; Wild v. Finger Lakes Racing Assn., 191 AD2d 995). As such, this general release does not bar the plaintiffs' claims.