LA MARCA v. KISSELL

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Edelen

    67 Misc. 3d 473 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020)

    A party seeking reformation due to mutual mistake must establish not only that a mistake exists, but exactly what was "really" agreed upon between the parties, by the evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. La Marca v. Kissell , 269 A.D.2d 835, 835, 702 N.Y.S.2d 490 (4th Dept. 2000).

  2. KeyBank v. Beauty Quest Skincare, LLC

    1:21-cv-778 (W.D.N.Y. May. 11, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    But the loan offer's verbal explanation is exactly the kind of extrinsic evidence that New York courts have repeatedly rejected. See Shahv.E. Silk Indus., Ltd., 112 A.D.2d 870, 871 (N.Y.App.Div. 1985), aff'd, 67 N.Y.2d 632 (N.Y. 1986); see also La Marcav.Kissell, 702 N.Y.S.2d 490, 491 (N.Y.App.Div. 2000). Finding no ambiguity in the terms of the Notes or the Guaranty, the court concludes that the information Ms. Wadhwa requests would be barred under New York's parol evidence rule and would not aid her in developing a genuine dispute of material fact or developing her defenses of lack of consideration or modification.

  3. Dwyer v. Dwyer

    190 Misc. 2d 319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

    Despite his claimed concern about the unfairness of the agreement, he has continued to accept whatever benefits the agreement gave him for almost five years, has done nothing to object to or seek redress for the supposed wrong done to him by the terms of the agreement, paid no mortgage payments, taxes, utilities, or other expenses associated with the properties in question, and in reality, by his actions, ratified the agreement. See LaMarca v. Kissell, 269 A.D.2d 835; Reader v. Reader, 236 A.D.2d 829; Panaggio v. Panaggio 256 A.D.2d 1115; Genovese v. Genovese 243 A.D.2d 679; Wasserman v. Wasserman 217 A.D.2d 544. Acquiescing in the agreement for an extended period of time will constitute ratification.

  4. Dwyer v. Dwyer

    190 Misc. 2d 319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

    Despite his claimed concern about the unfairness of the agreement, he has continued to accept whatever benefits the agreement gave him for almost five years, has done nothing to object to or seek redress for the supposed wrong done to him by the terms of the agreement, paid no mortgage payments, taxes, utilities, or other expenses associated with the properties in question, and in reality, by his actions, ratified the agreement. (See La Marca v Kissell, 269 AD2d 835; Reader v Reader, 236 AD2d 829; Panaggio v Panaggio, 256 AD2d 1115; Genovese v Genovese, 243 AD2d 679; Wasserman v Wasserman, 217 AD2d 544.) Acquiescing in the agreement for an extended period of time will constitute ratification.