by the real estate broker who prepared the lease.
"[I]n contract law, a scrivener's error, like a mutual mistake, occurs when the intention of the
parties is identical at the time of the transaction but the written agreement does not express that
intention because of that error; this permits a court acting in equity to reform the agreement"
(Bldg, ABI Enters., LLC v Second Ave. Corp., Sup Ct, NY County [Mills, J.], index No.
110703/2011, December 20, 2012, quoting Williston on Contracts §70.93 [4th ed.]).
Reformation is designed "solely for the purpose of stating correctly a mutual mistake shared by
both parties to the contract" (Nash v Kornblum, supra at 46). Furthermore,
reformation based on mutual mistake requires a showing "by 'clear, positive and convincing
evidence' that the agreement does not accurately express the parties' intentions or previous oral
agreement" (313-315 West 125th Street
LLC v Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 138 AD3d 601, 602 [1st Dept 2016], quoting Amend
v Hurley, 293 NY 587, 595 [1944]). In addition, reformation is the appropriate remedy where
the wrong party is named in a contract (see 313-315 125th St. L.L.C. v Arch Specialty Ins.
Co., supra).
The submissions do not include any evidence to dispute the fact that the Owner of the
Subject Apartment intended to rent the apartment to defendants, or that defendants intended to
lease the apartment from the Owner. Thus, it clearly and convincingly appears to this court that
the First Lease, as written, does not embody the true agreement as mutually intended, and that it
must be reformed to name the Trustees as Owner of the Subject Apartment.
The assertion that the First Lease is invalid because it was not properly signed by the [*7]Trustees is also insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as