Benz v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benz v. State

25 A.D.2d 482, 266 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

DocketClaim No. 40996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 482 (Benz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benz v. State, 25 A.D.2d 482, 266 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal

to either party. Memorandum: We recognize that a contract may be rescinded for a unilateral mistake (37 N. Y. Jur., Mistake, Accident, or Surprise, § 7; Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 270 N. Y. 79; Moses v. Carver, 254 App. Div. 402). The trial court concluded “ that there was no mistake sufficient for a rescission of the Agreement.” If this was intended to be a conclusion that the factual issue as to mistake was not established by a preponderance of the evidence (cf. 37 N. Y. Jur., Mistake, Accident, or Surprise, § 22) we agree therewith. 'The contention of claimant and her witnesses that the representative of the State promised that claimant subsequently would be paid 90% of the value of the claimed landlocked acreage in the rear and in addition the 'State would obtain a right of way to those lands is unrealistic and unbelievable. Such twofold relief in substance would have given claimant double compensation. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing the claim.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal

to either party. Memorandum: We recognize that a contract may be rescinded for a unilateral mistake (37 N. Y. Jur., Mistake, Accident, or Surprise, § 7; Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 270 N. Y. 79; Moses v. Carver, 254 App. Div. 402). The trial court concluded “ that there was no mistake sufficient for a rescission of the Agreement.” If this was intended to be a conclusion that the factual issue as to mistake was not established by a preponderance of the evidence (cf. 37 N. Y. Jur., Mistake, Accident, or Surprise, § 22) we agree therewith. 'The contention of claimant and her witnesses that the representative of the State promised that claimant subsequently would be paid 90% of the value of the claimed landlocked acreage in the rear and in addition the 'State would obtain a right of way to those lands is unrealistic and unbelievable. Such twofold relief in substance would have given claimant double compensation. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing the claim.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 482, 266 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benz-v-state-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack