Lazarus v. Bowery Savings Bank

New York Court of Appeals

Lazarus v. Bowery Savings Bank

209 N.E.2d 889, 16 N.Y.2d 793, 262 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1236

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 N.E.2d 889 (Lazarus v. Bowery Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lazarus v. Bowery Savings Bank, 209 N.E.2d 889, 16 N.Y.2d 793, 262 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1236 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and case remitted to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff. On this record, the uncontradicted evidence established that the written agreement of the parties resulted from a mutual mistake and that the true intent of the parties was to relieve plaintiff from personal liability on both the bond and the mortgage. Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to find facts which had been conclusively established (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 456-458).

Concur: Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Scileppi. Chief Judge Desmond dissents in the following opinion in which Judges Dye and Bergan concur.

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

Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and case remitted to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff. On this record, the uncontradicted evidence established that the written agreement of the parties resulted from a mutual mistake and that the true intent of the parties was to relieve plaintiff from personal liability on both the bond and the mortgage. Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to find facts which had been conclusively established (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 456-458).

Concur: Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Scileppi. Chief Judge Desmond dissents in the following opinion in which Judges Dye and Bergan concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.E.2d 889, 16 N.Y.2d 793, 262 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazarus-v-bowery-savings-bank-ny-1965.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack