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
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.
KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO PRIOR INCIDENTS—(1) A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING AND (2) NEARLY RUNNING OVER A TRAFFIC AGENT ABOUT TO ISSUE A PARKING TICKET—PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION SUPPORTING THE LEVEL THREE TRAFFIC STOP, DESPITE THE FACT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS DRIVING THE VAN DURING THE PRIOR INCIDENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (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...