From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sadock v. Mitrani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 1936
248 App. Div. 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

October 30, 1936.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

John Bogart of counsel [ Jacob Rosenthal with him on the brief], for the appellant.

E.A. Deutschman, for the respondents.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., McAVOY, UNTERMYER, DORE and COHN, JJ.


The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the court erroneously excluded parol evidence offered by the plaintiff tending to establish that by mutual mistake, or by mistake on the part of the plaintiff and fraud on the part of the defendants, the written contract fails correctly to express the true agreement of the parties. ( Susquehanna S.S. Co. v. Andersen Co., 239 N.Y. 285.)


Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.


Summaries of

Sadock v. Mitrani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 1936
248 App. Div. 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Sadock v. Mitrani

Case Details

Full title:MORRIS W. SADOCK, Appellant, v. SOLOMON MITRANI and Another, Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 30, 1936

Citations

248 App. Div. 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
290 N.Y.S. 792

Citing Cases

Feigen v. Green Harbour Club

( Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N.Y. 288.) Further the complaint seeks reformation of the contracts and the deeds…

Benderson Development Co. v. Schwab Bros. Trucking, Inc.

Thus parol evidence was improperly received and considered by the trial court in ascertaining their meaning.…