Gorman v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorman v. Ward

160 A.D.2d 579, 554 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651

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

DecidedApril 24, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 579 (Gorman v. Ward) 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

Gorman v. Ward, 160 A.D.2d 579, 554 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered February 8, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the motion court that a triable issue exists as to whether the sum of $8,666.10 as stated in the parties’ written stipulation correctly embodied their understanding with respect to the reduced vested interest in his pension which plaintiff had agreed to accept. Plaintiff contends that he and his counsel had been provided by defendant’s agent with an erroneous calculation as to the amount of his pension, upon which he justifiably relied. We further conclude that plaintiff’s allegations are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of opposing the motion. Since mutual mistake or [580]*580fraud may be the basis for reforming a written agreement (Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573), the motion court properly denied summary judgment to defendants. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered February 8, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the motion court that a triable issue exists as to whether the sum of $8,666.10 as stated in the parties’ written stipulation correctly embodied their understanding with respect to the reduced vested interest in his pension which plaintiff had agreed to accept. Plaintiff contends that he and his counsel had been provided by defendant’s agent with an erroneous calculation as to the amount of his pension, upon which he justifiably relied. We further conclude that plaintiff’s allegations are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of opposing the motion. Since mutual mistake or [580]*580fraud may be the basis for reforming a written agreement (Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573), the motion court properly denied summary judgment to defendants. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 579, 554 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-ward-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack