The IAS Court erred in dismissing the complaint. "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 Assocs. v. Kennedy Galleries, 203 A.D.2d 256, 257, citing Cahill v. Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292, 299). In Simon v Simon ( 274 App. Div. 447), we held that in the absence of a showing that a specified matter was in dispute at the time a general release was given, the release cannot be held to bar the releasor's rights as to such matter.
The allegations contained in the complaint and affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss, i.e., that the signing bonus was not in dispute and the general release was not intended by the parties to affect plaintiff's vested entitlement to his signing bonus, are deemed true for purposes of determining the motion ( Morone v. Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 484). Defendants failed to establish that the release was intended to bar recovery of the signing bonus; thus denial of the motion is required ( Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623, 624; Kemp v Perales, 199 A.D.2d 320, 321-322; see also, Fleming v. Ponziani, 24 N.Y.2d 105, 110; Mangini v. McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556, 563).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
Kupferman, J., dissents and would affirm for the reasons stated by Schoenfeld, J.