Plaintiff's tender of proof of mutual mistake, even if accepted as true, does not rise to the high level required to resist a motion for summary judgment directed against a cause of action for reformation and based upon unambiguous contractual language ( see, Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 574; Sagan v. Sagan, 53 N.Y.2d 635). Indeed, other than the claimed unconscionable one-sidedness of the agreement, properly rejected by the IAS Court, we perceive no proof of mutual mistake whatsoever.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.