## Facts

- Douglas Spector purchased two prescription drugs—Selacryn and Colchicine—from K-Mart Corporation over a five-month period in 1979.
- Spector alleged that his use of the drugs caused harmful effects.
- SmithKline Beckman Corporation (SmithKline), the manufacturer of Selacryn, paid Spector $40,000 in January 1982 to settle claims relating to Selacryn.
- In exchange, Spector executed a general release in favor of SmithKline and “all other persons, firms, or corporations,” releasing claims arising from his use of Selacryn, including stated “liability for contribution and/or indemnity.”
- In October 1982, Spector sued K-Mart in New York state court, asserting negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty based on the same alleged injuries.
- K-Mart commenced a third-party action against SmithKline, claiming SmithKline owed K-Mart contribution and/or indemnification if K-Mart were held liable to Spector.
- SmithKline moved under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss Spector’s complaint and K-Mart’s third-party complaint, arguing the earlier release barred both.
- The trial court denied SmithKline’s motion, and SmithKline appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Spector’s general release to SmithKline—purporting to benefit “all other persons, firms, or corporations” and referencing “contribution and/or indemnity”—required dismissal of Spector’s direct claims against K-Mart on a CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion.
2. Whether that release, as a matter of law on the pleadings, required dismissal of K-Mart’s third-party claims against SmithKline for contribution and/or indemnification.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order denying SmithKline’s CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion to dismiss.
- The court held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the release did not conclusively establish that Spector intended to release K-Mart from liability.
- The court also held that the release did not, as a matter of law on the pleadings, extinguish K-Mart’s third-party claims against SmithKline for contribution and/or indemnification.

## Legal Principles

- The scope and effect of a general release depend on the intent of the parties and the circumstances surrounding its execution; broad, boilerplate language is not always dispositive as a matter of law.
- A release that includes general “all other persons” language does not automatically discharge a non-settling, non-named party where the intent to release that party is not clear on the face of the record presented on a CPLR 3211 motion.
- Language in a release referencing “contribution and/or indemnity” does not necessarily bar a non-settling defendant’s third-party claims at the pleading stage if the intended reach of that language cannot be determined as a matter of law without further factual development.
- On a CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion based on a release, dismissal is improper where the release’s application to additional parties or related third-party claims cannot be resolved conclusively from the pleadings and the release instrument alone.

## Conclusion

Spector v. K-Mart Corporation holds that a broadly worded settlement release given to a drug manufacturer—though it referred to “all other persons” and to “contribution and/or indemnity”—did not require dismissal, at the CPLR 3211 pleading stage, of Spector’s claims against the retailer or the retailer’s third-party claims seeking contribution or indemnification from the manufacturer.


Spector v. K-Mart Corporation, 471 N.Y.S.2d 711 (1984)