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
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Officer Outside Village Limits Did Not Have Jurisdiction to Arrest for Traffic Offenses but Arrest for DWI Okay
The Absence of Plaintiff’s (Buyer’s) Attorney’s Explicit Unconditional Approval of the Purchase Contract Invalidated the Contract, Despite Plaintiff’s Desire to Go Through with the Purchase
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED BECAUSE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT.
Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed

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...