Hadley v. Clabeau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hadley v. Clabeau

161 A.D.2d 1141

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1141 (Hadley v. Clabeau) 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

Hadley v. Clabeau, 161 A.D.2d 1141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs met their burden of proving that the agreement of the parties was that the eastern boundary of the land sold to defendants would follow the brush line and that the attorney who drafted the deed made an error in the description of the property. When an error is not in the agreement itself, but in the instrument that embodies the agreement, "equity will interfere to compel the parties to execute the agreement which they have actually made, rather than enforce the instrument in its mistaken form” (16 NY Jur 2d, Cancellation and Reformation of Instruments, § 44, at 348; see also, Harris v Uhlendorf, 24 NY2d 463, 467; Nash v Kornblum, 12 NY2d 42, 47; Hart v Blabey, 287 NY 257, 262; Meier v Brooks, 22 AD2d 56, 59). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Horey, J.—reform deed.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Lowery, JJ. [See, 140 Misc 2d 994.]

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs met their burden of proving that the agreement of the parties was that the eastern boundary of the land sold to defendants would follow the brush line and that the attorney who drafted the deed made an error in the description of the property. When an error is not in the agreement itself, but in the instrument that embodies the agreement, "equity will interfere to compel the parties to execute the agreement which they have actually made, rather than enforce the instrument in its mistaken form” (16 NY Jur 2d, Cancellation and Reformation of Instruments, § 44, at 348; see also, Harris v Uhlendorf, 24 NY2d 463, 467; Nash v Kornblum, 12 NY2d 42, 47; Hart v Blabey, 287 NY 257, 262; Meier v Brooks, 22 AD2d 56, 59). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Horey, J.—reform deed.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Lowery, JJ. [See, 140 Misc 2d 994.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadley-v-clabeau-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack