You are here: / / DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED...
,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the note set forth the actual agreement between the parties:

“Because the thrust of a reformation claim is that a writing does not set forth the actual agreement of the parties, generally . . . the parol evidence rule . . . [does not] appl[y] to bar proof, in the form of parol or extrinsic evidence, of the claimed agreement” … . Nevertheless, “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifest[s] the true intention of the parties’ . . . and a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption” … . “The proponent of reformation must show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake . . . exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties’ ” … . …

… [D]efendant here set forth, in detail, the basis for his contention that both parties reached an agreement different from that set forth in the note. The affidavits of the CIO [plaintiff’s chief investment officer] and defendant contain the identical assertion that both parties—plaintiff via the CIO and defendant—agreed that plaintiff’s right to secure repayment of the loan would be limited to defendant’s stock interest … . The affidavits of the CIO and defendant are based upon personal knowledge and state in detail their understanding of the negotiations and the resulting agreement. Moreover, the CIO averred that he negotiated the loan on behalf of plaintiff at the time he was its chief investment officer, and he concluded that the terms of the note did not reflect what the parties had intended. Thus, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, we conclude that defendant submitted the requisite “high level” of proof required to raise a triable issue of fact regarding mutual mistake. Stache Invs. Corp. v Ciolek, 2019 NY Slip Op 05856, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE REASON FOR DEFENDANT’S PERIODIC ABSENCE FROM THE TRIAL; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WAS DELIBERATE, CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE IS A “MODE OF PROCEEDINGS” ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT; RATHER THE TREATMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).
CERTAIN LABOR LAW 200, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; QUESTION OF FACT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE PROJECT COORDINATOR MET SEVERAL DEFINITIONS OF ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), INCLUDING AS THE HOLDER OF AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FRISK HIM; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT WHEN HE THREW HIS COAT AT AN OFFICER AND RAN BECAUSE THE POLICE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ATTEMPT THE FRISK; INDICTMENT DISMISSED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A THEORY WHICH WOULD SUPPORT DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION BUT WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE BELOW (FOURTH DEPT).
A WRITTEN WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENHANCED FOR DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO SIGN THE WRITTEN WAIVER.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STAIRWAY TO THE ATTIC, WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, WAS NOT PART OF THE APARTMENT DESCRIBED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE STAIRWAY WAS A COMMON AREA; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL SEXUAL URGES, AS OPPOSED HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL URGES; THEREFORE CONFINEMENT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY (FOURTH 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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE... DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION...