Godnick v. Hornstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Godnick v. Hornstein

196 A.D. 953

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1921·Published

Opinion

The covenant to return the cash consideration for this sublease in case that within ninety days the paramount lease should be canceled was definite, plain and free from ambiguity. Plaintiff was rightly adjudged reimbursement of the sum which the bankrupt had advanced on the agreement for its return if the original lease should be terminated by action of the original lessor. Parol evidence was rightfully excluded. (Gold v. Boss, 195 App. Div. 721.) The pleadings and testimony made no pretense of mutual mistake as a ground to reform the instrument. The judgment and order are, therefore, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Blackmar, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Jaycox, JJ.

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

The covenant to return the cash consideration for this sublease in case that within ninety days the paramount lease should be canceled was definite, plain and free from ambiguity. Plaintiff was rightly adjudged reimbursement of the sum which the bankrupt had advanced on the agreement for its return if the original lease should be terminated by action of the original lessor. Parol evidence was rightfully excluded. (Gold v. Boss, 195 App. Div. 721.) The pleadings and testimony made no pretense of mutual mistake as a ground to reform the instrument. The judgment and order are, therefore, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Blackmar, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Jaycox, JJ.

Godnick v. Hornstein, 196 A.D. 953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

196 A.D. 953 (Godnick v. Hornstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related