Central State Bank v. Botwin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Central State Bank v. Botwin

71 Misc. 2d 1012, 337 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1471

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 13, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 Misc. 2d 1012 (Central State Bank v. Botwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central State Bank v. Botwin, 71 Misc. 2d 1012, 337 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The trial court under guise of imposing an estoppel impermissibly undertook to exercise equitable powers beyond its jurisdiction necessary to q judgment for reformation of a written instrument. The record, however, seems to establish unilateral mistake on the part of Mrs. Botwin and inequitable conduct on the part of the bank’s representative, Mr. Rogers, [1013]*1013in connection with the signing of the instrument of guarantee. Hence, in reversing, we do so without prejudice to such equitable relief as may be sought in the Supreme Court in an action for reformation. Moreover, this judgment on appeal should in no wise be given the effect of res judicata, either directly or by way of collateral estoppel, in any such action.

Order so far as it dismissed plaintiff’s second cause of action against defendant Dale Botwin is reversed, without costs, and judgment granted plaintiff against defendant Dale Botwin in the same amount as that assessed against her defaulting codefendant, Alfred Botwin.

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

Per Curiam.

The trial court under guise of imposing an estoppel impermissibly undertook to exercise equitable powers beyond its jurisdiction necessary to q judgment for reformation of a written instrument. The record, however, seems to establish unilateral mistake on the part of Mrs. Botwin and inequitable conduct on the part of the bank’s representative, Mr. Rogers, [1013]*1013in connection with the signing of the instrument of guarantee. Hence, in reversing, we do so without prejudice to such equitable relief as may be sought in the Supreme Court in an action for reformation. Moreover, this judgment on appeal should in no wise be given the effect of res judicata, either directly or by way of collateral estoppel, in any such action.

Order so far as it dismissed plaintiff’s second cause of action against defendant Dale Botwin is reversed, without costs, and judgment granted plaintiff against defendant Dale Botwin in the same amount as that assessed against her defaulting codefendant, Alfred Botwin.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Misc. 2d 1012, 337 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-state-bank-v-botwin-nyappterm-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack