You are here: / / Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contr...

Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint.  Plaintiffs contended the floor share price in the “notwithstanding” clause of the contract was an error, and submitted a supporting email referring to a different price in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court agreed that the email was sufficient to overcome the dismissal motion and explained the powerful legal effect of a “notwithstanding” clause and the criteria for reformation of a contract:

It is well settled that trumping language such as a “notwithstanding” provision “controls over any contrary language” in a contract … . This Court has likewise noted that “inconsistency provisions” — i.e. those that dictate which of two contract provisions should prevail in the event of an inconsistency — “are frequently enforced by courts” … .

In construing statutes and contracts, the U.S. Supreme Court has remarked that “the use of . . . a notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions of any other section” … . Thus, the effect of a “notwithstanding” clause will prevail “even if other provisions of the contract[] might seem to require . . . a [conflicting] result” … . * * *

Before a court will grant reformation of a contract, the party demanding this equitable remedy ” must establish his right to such relief by clear, positive and convincing evidence'” … . The purpose of reformation is not to “alleviat[e] a hard or oppressive bargain, but rather to restate the intended terms of an agreement when the writing that memorializes that agreement is at variance with the intent of both parties” … . In order to “overcome the heavy presumption” that the contract embodies the parties’ true intent, the party seeking reformation must “show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties” … . Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund LP v GeoResources, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06826, 1st Dept 10-22-13

 

You might also like
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).
THE POLICE STARTED FOLLOWING DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE CROSSED THE STREET TO AVOID THEM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR A COMMON-LAW INQUIRY AND NOTHING DEFENDANT DID AFTER THE STREET STOP JUSTIFIED THE LEVEL THREE SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT; THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER WHEN STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
CENTURY-OLD ELEVATOR MUST BE REPLACED, DESPITE THE COST AND DESPITE THE APPARENT FACT THAT ONLY ONE OF FOUR TENANTS USED THE ELEVATOR (FIRST DEPT).
PLENARY ACTION UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGING ATTORNEYS ENGAGED IN DECEITFUL AND COLLUSIVE CONDUCT DURING A PRIOR CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
PLAINTIFF MODEL SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PHOTOSHOOTS DONE WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 FOR A SUNTANNING-PRODUCT MARKETING CAMPAIGN CONSTITUTED “SEXUAL PERFORMANCES” TRIGGERING THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Call Treating Physician Allowed Negative Inference in Case Alleging... Physician Can Be Removed from Medicaid Program Irrespective of Action Taken...