Justice Smith begins his dissent by saying: "I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The majority, in this rather straightforward case, has gone to great lengths to reverse the trial judge, when the latter correctly resolved this case . . . ."
I like the first sentence, in which the "respectfully" part actually appears respectful (as opposed to sarcastic), but am less certain about the second one.
Yes, the majority opinion (written by Justice Poochigian) reverses, and yes, it seems to fix a problem that pervaded the case. But I'm not sure it does so erroneously.
Plaintiff says the parties accidentally wrote down the wrong name on the contract and that, as a result, the actual plaintiff (the one who did the work) can't get paid a dime. That seems plausible to me; I could see that happening sometimes, and (perhaps) particularly in this context. If that in fact transpired, that's not right, and the law should grant a remedy; something we call reformation. And that's what the majority opinion says might in fact happen.
No one's saying that plaintiff's definitely right; we're at the pleading stage here. But if they're right, the law seems to me both can and should grant a remedy. Writing in the wrong name isn't fatal. And that's true regardless of the fact that the prior lawyers initially filed a complaint -- presumably relying on the name written in the contract -- on behalf of the wrong name.
It's a fact question. Let summary judgment and/or trial sort it out.
Even if that means writing a somewhat lengthy majority opinion to allow that to happen.
