Toledano v. Eliyahu, 102 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Toledano v. Eliyahu, 102 A.D.3d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: McClorey v. McClorey (nyappdiv, 2017-09-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McClorey v. McClorey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, the defendant failed to come forward with record evidence to support his alternative assertions that the clear and unambiguous stipulation was the product of mutual mistake (see Yakobowicz v Yakobowicz, 142 AD3d 996, 997-998 [2016]; Book v Book, 58 AD3d 781, 783 [2009]; Hannigan v Hannigan, 50 AD3d 957, 958 [2008]; Vermilyea v Vermilyea, 224 AD2d 759, 760-761 [1996]), or of a unilateral mistake induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation by the plaintiff (see Yakobowicz v Yakobowicz, 142 AD3d at 997-998 ; Rosin v Weinberg, 107 AD3d 682, 683-684 [2013]; Matter of Toledano v Eliyahu, 102 AD3…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Shmouel Toledano
v.
Yoram Eliyahu
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 2013.
102 A.D.3d 879
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) for the judicial dissolution of certain corporations, and action, among other things, to recover damages for breach of contract, the respondents/defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered July 27, 2011, as granted that branch of the petitioner/plaintiff s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the sixth counterclaim for rescission of an agreement between the petitioner/ plaintiff and the respondent/defendant Yoram Eliyahu.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the petitioner/plaintiff s motion which was for summary judgment[*880] dismissing the sixth counterclaim for rescission of an agreement between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant Yoram Eliyahu. In response to the petitioner/plaintiff s prima facie showing that the agreement at issue should not be set aside (see Reiner v Reiner, 59 AD3d 420 [2009]), the respondents/ defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the agreement was executed under a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation by the petitioner/plaintiff (see Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]; Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Disk, 81 NY2d 446, 453 [1993]; Channel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 407 [1958]; County of Orange v Grier, 30 AD3d 556, 557 [2006]; Almap Holdings v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 196 AD2d 518 [1993]; Sunlight Funding Corp. v Singer, 146 AD2d 625, 626 [1989]; Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 151, Comment a). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32127(U).]