You are here: / / REFORMATION OF CONTRACT TO CORRECT THE NAMING OF THE WRONG PARTY TO BE...

REFORMATION OF CONTRACT TO CORRECT THE NAMING OF THE WRONG PARTY TO BE INDEMNIFIED, A MUTUAL MISTAKE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an indemnification agreement could be reformed on the grounds of mutual mistake. The wrong party was named as the “owner” and, therefore, the true owner was not named in the hold harmless clause of the indemnification agreement:

“A claim for reformation of a written agreement must be grounded upon either mutual mistake or fraudulently induced unilateral mistake” … . To succeed, the party asserting mutual mistake must establish by “clear, positive and convincing evidence” that the agreement does not accurately express the parties' intentions or previous oral agreement … .

Parol evidence may be used … , and reformation is an appropriate remedy where the wrong party was named in the contract … . On the record before us, plaintiffs clearly and convincingly established that K & K intended to indemnify the true owner, 313 West, and that, as a result of mutual mistake, the agreement misidentified Solil, the managing agent, rather than 313 West itself, as the “Owner” of the property where the work was to be performed. 313-315 W. 125th St. L.L.C. v Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 03105, 1st Dept 4-26-16


You might also like
WHEN SERVICE OF PROCESS IS MAILED TO A BUSINESS ADDRESS, AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, THE ENVELOPE SHOULD NOT INDICATE THE CONTENTS ARE LITIGATION-RELATED; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS WAS BOTH HIS RESIDENTIAL AND HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AND THE ENVELOPE INDICATED THE CONTENTS WERE LITIGATION-RELATED; THE RESIDENTIAL MAILING RULES APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT” IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FOR TAX PREPARATION SERVICES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO QUASH SUPBOENAS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (OAG) TO THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IN THE OAG’S FRAUD INVESTIGATION; THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RELATED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE CIVIL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (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

ARBITRABLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY TIED TO CLAIMS ALREADY IN COURT SHOULD... OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.