[*1]
Lee Deli Corp. v Associated Mut. Ins. Coop.
2006 NY Slip Op 50534(U) [11 Misc 3d 138(A)]
Decided on April 3, 2006
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on April 3, 2006
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ
.

Lee Deli Corp., d/b/a Rosario Deli, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Associated Mutual Insurance Cooperative, Defendant, -and- Northern Star Realty, LLC., Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered December 8, 2004, which granted defendant Northern Star Realty's motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), and denied, as moot, plaintiff's cross motion to amend the caption.


PER CURIAM:

Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered December 8, 2004, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint against defendant Northern Star since plaintiff's claim for overpayment of rent was barred by a "surrender of lease" executed by plaintiff after the premises were damaged by fire. Under the clear and unambiguous terms of the agreement, plaintiff and defendant agreed to "mutually release" one another "from any and all obligations under said lease, including but not limited to obligations for rent." The release is enforceable in the absence of fraud, duress, illegality or mutual mistake (see Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556 [1969]; Mergler v Crystal Properties Associates, Ltd., 179 AD2d 177 [1992]), factors not present here. At the time plaintiff executed the release, it knew of the potential claim for which it now seeks compensation. Plaintiff's unsubstantiated claim that it did not intend the release to apply to its rent overpayment claim was insufficient to defeat defendant's motion to [*2]dismiss (see Barry v Hildreth, 9 AD3d 341, 342 [2004]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: April 3, 2006