misidentify the Owner in the leases. Moreover, the Trustees acknowledge their intention to rent
the Subject Apartment to defendants (see Frank Agrama Affid, supra; Olfet
Agrama Affid, supra), and defendants acknowledge their intention to lease the apartment
from the Owner (Dep. Tr., Carolyn O'Mara, supra). In addition, the real estate broker who
prepared the leases testified that "everything was done like pretty rushed at the time," and that
"mistake[s]" and "omissions" were made (Dep. Tr., Carrey, supra). The amendment to the
caption only has the effect of correcting a mistake in designation of a name and does not
effectuate any change in the parties (see Covina v Alside Aluminum Supply Co.,
supra, at 81). "Where there is no mistake about the agreement, and the only mistake
alleged is in the reduction of that agreement to writing, such mistake of the scrivener, or of either
party, no matter how it occurred, may be corrected" (Nash v Kornblum, 12 NY2d 42,
46-47 [1962]).
Defendants cannot seriously claim prejudice from an amendment to the caption. They
certainly cannot argue that they relied on the fact that it was the Trust, rather than the Trustees,
that owned the Subject Apartment when they entered into the lease agreements. Thus, the branch
of the cross motion that seeks to amend the caption in the pleadings to conform to the proper
legal name of the owner of the Subject Apartment is granted.
However, the remainder of the cross motion is denied. In it, plaintiffs seek leave to further
amend the pleadings to include factual allegations seeking to enforce the Second Lease, after
reforming that lease to include the proper name of the Owner of the Subject Apartment and the
rent increase for the second year, and to increase the amount of damages sought to include the