Sanzotta v. Continuing Developmental Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanzotta v. Continuing Developmental Services, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 1047, 692 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint based on defendant’s alleged breach of contract and judgment on its counterclaim for rescission of agreements executed in connection with the transfer of plaintiffs business to defendant. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion in part, dismissing only the second cause of action. Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it is entitled to rescind the agreements based upon a unilateral mistake known to plaintiff at the time the agreements were [1048]*1048negotiated and left uncorrected by her (see, Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405) or fraudulent misrepresentations made by plaintiff and her son with respect to the value of the business (see, Curran, Cooney, Penney v Young & Koomans, 183 AD2d 742, 743, lv denied 80 NY2d 757). Defendant also failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the son acted as plaintiff’s agent during the negotiations (see, Skutt, Inc. v Goodwin, Ltd., 251 App Div 84, 86-87) and that plaintiff is bound by his representations (see, Harriss v Tams, 258 NY 229, 236; Adler v Helman, 169 AD2d 925, 926). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint based on defendant’s alleged breach of contract and judgment on its counterclaim for rescission of agreements executed in connection with the transfer of plaintiffs business to defendant. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion in part, dismissing only the second cause of action. Defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it is entitled to rescind the agreements based upon a unilateral mistake known to plaintiff at the time the agreements were [1048]*1048negotiated and left uncorrected by her (see, Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405) or fraudulent misrepresentations made by plaintiff and her son with respect to the value of the business (see, Curran, Cooney, Penney v Young & Koomans, 183 AD2d 742, 743, lv denied 80 NY2d 757). Defendant also failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that the son acted as plaintiff’s agent during the negotiations (see, Skutt, Inc. v Goodwin, Ltd., 251 App Div 84, 86-87) and that plaintiff is bound by his representations (see, Harriss v Tams, 258 NY 229, 236; Adler v Helman, 169 AD2d 925, 926). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Sanzotta v. Continuing Developmental Services, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 1047, 692 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 1047 (Sanzotta v. Continuing Developmental Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related