DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' assertions, their petition for dissolution of Brooklyn Resources Recovery, Inc. (hereinafter BRRI), pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a did not include any other causes of action, such as one to recover damages for breach of a loan agreement or fraud, but merely contained allegations of illegal, fraudulent, or oppressive actions required to support their claim for dissolution ( see Business Corporation Law § 1104-a; Matter of Penepent Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 180, 191; Matter of Charleston Sq., 295 A.D.2d 425, 426; Matter of Upstate Med. Assoc., 292 A.D.2d 732, 733; Sears v. Country Developers, 178 A.D.2d 708) . Further, the settlement and release agreement dated January 27, 2000, between BRRI, the petitioner Gerardo Muro, and entities controlled by him pertaining to five related lawsuits, was knowingly and voluntarily executed by Muro individually and on behalf of all the entities, and contained a general release that unambiguously released BRRI from all future claims, including claims for debts, with the exception of the petition for dissolution as it had been pleaded as of the date of the settlement agreement. The plain language of the release is controlling, regardless of one party's claim that he intended something else ( see Chaudhry v. Garvale, 262 A.D.2d 518). Thus, the petitioners are barred from asserting new claims as part of the dissolution proceeding. Moreover, the election of majority shareholders of BRRI under Business Corporation Law § 1118(a) to purchase the petitioners' shares for their fair value, and the subsequent settlement of the dispute as to the fair market value of those shares, effectively disposes of the petition for dissolution ( see Matter of Penepent Corp., supra).
RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.