DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him based on a general release executed by the plaintiffs. The meaning and coverage of a general release necessarily depends upon the controversy being settled and the purpose for which the release was given. The release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not intend to cover (see, Cahill v. Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292, 299; Stone v. Aronwald Pykett, 275 A.D.2d 706; [2d Dept., Sept. 11, 2000]; Lefrak SBN Assocs. v. Kennedy Galleries, 203 A.D.2d 256). We agree with the Supreme Court that there is an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs intended to release the appellant from the claims alleged in the complaint. Thus, the appellant's motion was properly denied.