Legal Opinion
Epstein v. Kaplan
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided February 8, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
Even though this action is one at law, if the plaintiff seeks to escape from the consequences of a release by showing mutual mistake or mistake and fraud, that issue, though equitable in nature, may be determined in the law action. (Wilcox v. American T. & T. Co., 176 N. Y. 115; Warner v. Star Co., 162 App. Div. 458.) It is not necessary first to reform the instrument. (Susquehanna S. S. Co. v. Andersen & Co., 239 N. Y. 285.) The rule is no different in the Municipal Court, since plaintiff does not seek equitable relief, but merely seeks to negative the affirmative defense interposed by the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Susquehanna Steamship Co. v. A. O. Andersen & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Wilcox v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Warner v. Star Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Jensen v. Barber Steamship LinesCity of New York Municipal Court · 1920
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fiance v. United Jewish Appeal of Greater New York, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1953
- 82-10 Roosevelt Avenue, Inc. v. SachsAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1950