Opinion
November 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.).
Extrinsic evidence was properly admitted to determine the ownership of the loading dock due to the ambiguity of the term "appurtenances" in the proprietary lease (see, Rock Ridge Townhouses v. Village of Tupper Lake, 99 A.D.2d 914). Further, extrinsic evidence is admissible in a reformation action even if there is no ambiguity (Thompson v. Howell, 20 A.D.2d 963). The court properly found that defendants presented strong evidence of mutual mistake (see, Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573-574), based upon the provisions in the Offering Plan, the parties' pattern of performance subsequent to the date of the lease, and the testimony of the attorney who drafted the documents and represented both parties in the conversion (see, Hadley v. Clabeau, 140 Misc.2d 994, affd 161 A.D.2d 1141). Finally, the court properly denied the motion to renew since none of the "evidence" presented could not have been submitted on the initial motions; in any event, we find such material would not warrant a different result.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.