You are here: / / Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position...

Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position Contrary to the Position Plaintiff Took In Two Prior Successful Actions

The Third Department determined the position taken by plaintiff in prior successful actions, i.e., that defendant was the owner of certain lots, precluded plaintiff, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, from taking the position defendant was not the owner of those lots in the instant proceeding:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, or estoppel against inconsistent positions, “if a party assumes a position in one legal proceeding and prevails in maintaining that position, that party will not be permitted to assume a contrary position in another proceeding simply because the party’s interests have changed” … . “The doctrine rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise” …. . Green Harbour Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Ermiger, 2015 NY Slip Op 03899, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

You might also like
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict
Questions of Fact Existed Re: Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Rely on Defendant’s Assurances Dog Was Not Aggressive
Criteria for Grant of Visitation to Grandparent When Both Parents Alive
For Each Year the Business Investment Exemption from Real Property Tax Law Is Sought, a Separate Application Must Be Made
REGULATION LIMITING BRIEFS TO EIGHT PAGES IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE LONGER BRIEF WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR REJECTING THE EMPLOYER’S APPLICATION AND APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (THIRD DEPT).
Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

State’s Decrease in Its Contribution to Judges’ Health Care Insurance... 120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended...