You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded defendants’ statute of limitations defense. The court explained the criteria:

The doctrine of equitable estoppel will preclude a defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense ” where it is the defendant’s affirmative wrongdoing . . . which produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding'” … . A plaintiff seeking to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel must “establish that subsequent and specific actions by defendants somehow kept [the plaintiff] from timely bringing suit” … . “Equitable estoppel is appropriate where the plaintiff is prevented from filing an action within the applicable statute of limitations due to his or her reasonable reliance on deception, fraud or misrepresentations by the defendant” … . Where the defendant has a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked based on the defendant’s failure to disclose facts underlying the claim … . North Coast Outfitters, Ltd. v Darling, 2015 NY Slip Op 09409, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE EXPLAINED)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Exclusion from a “Sirois” Hearing (Where It Was Determined a Witness Was “Practically Unavailable” Because of Threats Made to the Witness on Behalf of the Defendant) Was Reversible Error
A JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
The Martin Rule, Which Prohibits Actions Against Unincorporated Associations Unless the Actions Complained of Were Authorized or Ratified, Does Not Prohibit Actions Against Individual Association Members
THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL LICENSE HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER... PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.