Kaprall v. WE: Women's Entm't., LLC

• Decision Date: 22 June 2010
• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 1151,904 N.Y.S.2d 721
• Parties: Robert KAPRALL, respondent, v. WE: WOMEN'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

904 N.Y.S.2d 721

74 A.D.3d 1151

Robert KAPRALL, respondent,

v.WE: WOMEN'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 22, 2010.

Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry I. Slotnick and Shelly Elimelekh of counsel), for appellants.

Stein Riso Mantel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edward R. Minson of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and tortious interference with business relationships, the defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated August 7, 2008, as denied those branches of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and tortious interference with business relationships insofar as asserted against the defendants Peggy Willenberg, Melanie Metz Trockman, and Upper-Midwest Storm Tours, LLC, and the cause of action to recover damages based upon quantum meruit/unjust enrichment insofaras asserted against the defendant WE: Women's Entertainment, LLC.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, a Minnesota-based creator and producer of television programs, entered into negotiations with the defendants Peggy Willenberg and Melanie Metz Trockman, who are Minnesota residents, and who own the defendant Upper-Midwest Storm Tours, LLC (hereinafter Storm Tours) (hereinafter collectively the Minnesota defendants), to produce a television series about tracking extreme weather. Willenberg and Trockman are known as the "Twister Sisters." Storm Tours provides guided tours to tourists who wish to follow storms and other extreme weather. The plaintiff approached the defendant WE:Women's Entertainment, LLC (hereinafter WE), a New York corporation, about developing the series. In return for considering the plaintiff's idea, WE required him to sign a release stating that if WE developed a television program based on the "same or similar" idea as he presented, he would "have no interest in or claim thereon." WE did not develop the plaintiff's idea but, several months later, WE produced a series starring Willenberg and Trockman, which was the same or similar to the idea the plaintiff had proposed.

As a result, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages from the defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with business relationships, and based upon quantum meruit/unjust enrichment. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5), and (8). The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the cause of action alleging breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to all the defendants, and the cause of action to recover damages based upon quantum meruit/unjust enrichment as to the Minnesota defendants. The Supreme Court otherwise denied the defendants' motion. The defendants appeal.

"The meaning and scope of a release must be determined within the context of the controversy being settled" ( Matter of Schaefer, 18 N.Y.2d 314, 317, 274 N.Y.S.2d 869, 221 N.E.2d 538; see Zichron Acheinu Levy, Inc. v. Ilowitz, 31 A.D.3d 756, 820 N.Y.S.2d 601), and a general release cannot be construed "to cover matters which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of" ( Cahill v. Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292, 299, 184 N.Y.S.2d 348, 157 N.E.2d 505; see Rotondi v. Drewes, 31 A.D.3d 734, 735-736, 819 N.Y.S.2d 779). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff raised factual issues regarding the scope of the subject release based on the context and circumstances of its execution ( see generally Mangini v. McClurg, 24 N.Y.2d 556, 563, 301 N.Y.S.2d 508, 249 N.E.2d 386; Lefrak SBN Assoc. v. Kennedy Galleries, 203 A.D.2d 256, 609 N.Y.S.2d 651; Perritano v. Town of Mamaroneck, 126 A.D.2d 623, 624, 511 N.Y.S.2d 60). Given the paucity of evidence in the record relating to this pre-answer motion, it cannot definitively be determined at this juncture whether the release was intended to cover the plaintiff's present claims ( see e.g. Rimberg & Assoc., P.C. v. Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 837 N.Y.S.2d 259). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (5) to dismiss the causes...