Jordan v. Villetto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jordan v. Villetto

38 A.D.3d 716, 830 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 716 (Jordan v. Villetto) 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

Jordan v. Villetto, 38 A.D.3d 716, 830 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated September 15, [717]*7172005, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract is denied.

The defendants failed to plead reformation either as an affirmative defense or as a counterclaim. Thus, it was waived (see CPLR 3018 [b]; Apex Two v Terwilliger, 211 AD2d 856, 857-858 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit Miller, J.P, Schmidt, Ritter and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated September 15, [717]*7172005, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract is denied.

The defendants failed to plead reformation either as an affirmative defense or as a counterclaim. Thus, it was waived (see CPLR 3018 [b]; Apex Two v Terwilliger, 211 AD2d 856, 857-858 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ cross motion for reformation of the parties’ contract.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit Miller, J.P, Schmidt, Ritter and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 716, 830 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-villetto-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack