Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence in the record is insufficient to warrant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Reformation has been allowed in insurance cases where the insured's premises are not as described in the policy but the insurer has not shown that it would not have insured the premises had it known the true facts (see, Pena v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 172 A.D.2d 393; Abulaynain v New York Merchant Bakers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 128 A.D.2d 575; Court Tobacco Stores v Great E. Ins. Co., 43 A.D.2d 561). Here, the defendant insurer's senior vice-president admitted that for a higher premium the insurer would have issued coverage of the plaintiff's premises without a sprinkler system. There is no allegation that the plaintiffs misrepresented their building as having a working sprinkler system. In fact, the insurer admitted that it obtained the information that the building was a "sprinklered risk" from the Insurance Service Organization. Moreover, there is evidence that upon receiving the policy purporting to cover a building with a sprinkler system, the plaintiff's agent contacted the issuing insurance agency and attempted to correct the error (compare, Town of German Flats v Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 174 A.D.2d 1003; Ogdensburg Bldg. Supply v Lumber Mut. Ins. Co., 102 A.D.2d 960). Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court acted improperly in denying the insurer's motion. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.