You are here: / / JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT...

JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET.

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a quiet title action under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Plaintiff alleged a deed which purported to transfer her title to the property was forged. Defendant, citing the delay in plaintiff’s taking action, sought dismissal of the complaint on equitable estoppel grounds. The Second Department determined the “justifiable reliance” element of equitable estoppel had not been demonstrated:

Although [defendant] made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff knew of the allegedly forged deed transferring title from her to Edward Wallace, unjustifiably delayed almost two years in commencing this action from the time she was advised to do so by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, and intended her delay to be acted upon, and that [defendant] lacked knowledge of the allegedly forged deed and prejudicially changed its position … , [defendant] failed to establish, prima facie, that its reliance upon the plaintiff’s conduct was justified … . Wallace v BSD-M Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05917, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

REAL PROPERTY (JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER HAD PAID ALL THE CHILD SUPPORT HE OWED; THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY GRAVITY, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant Not Prejudiced by Disposal of Damaged Goods (Spoliation)/Lost Profits Recoverable Where Purchase Price Set at Time of Damage
SURVEILLANCE VIDEO PROPERLY EXCLUDED, IT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE... ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL...