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
PASSING REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS’ INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).
NYPD PROPERLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ITS USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION, IRIS RECOGNITION AND MOBILE X-RAY TECHNOLOGIES (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THIS “AS IS” SALE OF A BUILDING RELEASED THE SELLER FROM LIABILIITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BUT NOT FOR FRAUD (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).
CHALLENGE TO THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON CAUSATION OF DEATH IS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO OBJECT PRECLUDES REVIEW; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE JURY INSTRUCTION IS REVIEWABLE BECAUSE IT RELIEVED THE PEOPLE OF THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RENEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT WHEN ADDITIONAL GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD REVIEWED THE ENTIRE GRAND JURY MINUTES BEFORE DENYING THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MOTION COURT WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM ANOTHER ARGUMENT BASED ON THE NEWLY RELEASED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO WORK ONLY ON GROUND LEVEL AND NOT TO USE STILTS, AND WHETHER THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED USE OF THE STILTS AFTER HE FELT THEM BECOME UNSTABLE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIE OFF LANYARD WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, ABSENCE OF A GUARDRAIL ON THE SCAFFOLD REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

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.