Daly v. Messina

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the December 4, 1981, deed was properly reformed to reflect that the defendants Eugene Messina and Patrick Franzese each received a 44.4% *543interest and the plaintiff received an 11.2% interest in the property conveyed. The record demonstrates by "clear, positive and convincing evidence” (Amend v Hurley, 293 NY 587, 595; see also, Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219-220) that this was the intent of the grantor and the grantees and that the mistake was " 'in the reduction of [the deed] to writing, [a] mistake of the scrivener’ ” (Harris…