green
Positive treatment
Issue: estoppel doctrineNY ↗
Issue: principles testNY ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
29.6 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2019 · 2 courts ·
…municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid.
at p. 708
✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1998 ·
…because a governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable for the unauthorized acts of its agents ... we have frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency
✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 · 2 courts ·
…municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid
at p. 708
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable under estoppel for the unauthorized acts of its agents.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay
(3×)
municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Schmitt
(3×)
because a governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable for the unauthorized acts of its agents ... we have frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
JobPath Partners, LLC v. City of New York and CDW Government Services
Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Great Swamp Conservancy Inc. v. Town of Lenox
Nor was defendant bound by the unauthorized representations of its officers ( see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston , 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]; Glenville Police Benevolent Assn. v Mosher , 31 AD3d 874, 875 [2006]; McKee v City of Cohoes Bd. of Educ. , 99 AD2d 923, 925 [1984]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, P.C. v. City of New York
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Hence, "[m]unicipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid." Granada Bldgs., Inc. v City of Kingston , 58 NY2d 705, 708 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, P.C. v. City of New York
Fund Corp. v City of New York, 129 AD3d 451 , 451 [1st Dept 2015] [“The courts of this state have long held that ‘no implied contract to pay for benefits furnished by a person under an agreement which is invalid because it fails to comply with statutory restrictions and inhibitions can create an obligation or liability of the city’ ”], quoting Seif v City of Long Beach, 286 NY 382, 387 [1941].) Hence, “[m]unicipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid.” (Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982].) This is true even if the party contractin…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rossi v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
Moreover, “estoppel is unavailable against a public agency” (see Granada Bldgs, v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JFK Holding Co., LLC v. City of New York
While the City disputes the existence of the claimed oral agreement to forgo legal action, even if such agreement had been made it would have been invalid and unenforceable since, pursuant to NY City Charter § 394 (b) and § 328 (a), any enforceable agreement with the City must be in writing, approved as to form by the Corporation Counsel, and registered with the Comptroller (see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]; Infrastructure Mgt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bianchi Industrial Services, LLC v. Village of Malone
Municipal contracts that violate clear statutory provisions are not enforceable (see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]; Town of Oneonta v City of Oneonta, 191 AD2d 891, 891-892 [1993]; McKee v City of Cohoes Bd. of Educ., 99 AD2d 923, 925 [1984]), and Village Law § 5-520 (2) prohibits a village from entering into a contract “unless an amount has been appropriated for the particular purpose and is available therefor or has been authorized to be borrowed pursuant to the local finance law.” On this limited record, however, it is not entirely clear that the contract v…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
328 Owners Corp. v. 330 West 86 Oaks Corp.
(2×)
To allow Oaks Corp to circumvent the conditions by promptly selling the premises is clearly antithetical to the purpose of article 16 of the General Municipal Law (cf. Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982] [“Municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid”]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re City of New York
Accordingly, to the extent that the tax lien certificate can be deemed to set forth a different rate of interest than that to which the City is entitled pursuant to the provisions of the controlling law, it is invalid (Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982] [municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid], rearg denied 58 NY2d 825 [1983]; see also TSNB, Inc. v City of New York, 127 Misc 2d 285 [1985]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kerlikowske v. City of Buffalo
Nor may plaintiff rely on the doctrine of estoppel to enforce the alleged contract (see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982], rearg denied 58 NY2d 825 [1983]; Grishman, 183 AD2d at 466 ; Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 97 AD2d at 67-68 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Babylon v. N. Racanelli Associates
We find no merit to the defendant’s contentions that despite the foregoing statutory violations, it is entitled to specific performance of the contract on equitable grounds (see, e.g., Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, supra, at 708; Kelly v Cohoes Hous.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Tel. & Tel. v. NYC DEPT. OF HUMAN RES.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
The New York Court of Appeals has "frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency." Granada Buildings, Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906, 907 , 444 N.E.2d 1325, 1326 (1982) ( citing Public Improvements, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 850, 852 , 453 N.Y.S.2d 170, 171 , 438 N.E.2d 876, 877 (1982)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co v. New York City Department of Human Resources
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
The New York Court of Appeals has “frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency.” Granada Buildings, Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906, 907 , 444 N.E.2d 1325, 1326 (1982) (citing Public Improvements, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 850, 852 , 453 N.Y.S.2d 170, 171 , 438 N.E.2d 876, 877 (1982)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of New York v. New York Telephone Co.
(Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [citing Seifv City of Long Beach, 286 NY 382 ].) This is so notwithstanding the following language printed on the back of the “sidewalk public telephone booth” licenses issued by the Department of Highways with the concurrence of the various borough presidents at the time: “[Telco] shall pay to the City of New York * * * the standard rates of commissions adopted by the Company from time to time * * * after first deducting from such commissions the cost to [Telco] of the electrical current necessary for the illumination and ventilation …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TSNB, Inc. v. City of New York
(Granada Bldg. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [involving an unauthorized tax exemption]; see also, City of Zanesville, Ohio v Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 97 AD2d 64, 66-67 ; 40 NY Jur, Municipal Corporations, §§ 815, 817.) New York City Charter § 1520 directs the Commissioner of Finance to “charge, receive and collect the interest and penalties upon taxes on real estate not paid when due and payable in such manner and at such rates as shall be provided by law”.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Genesco Entertainment, a Div. of Lymutt v. Koch
Granada Buildings, Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 , 444 N.E.2d 1325, 1326 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906, 907 (1982) (citations omitted). 57 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McKee v. City of Cohoes Board of Education
Moreover, as a “governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable for the unauthorized acts of its agents” (Granada Bldgs, v City of Kingston, supra, p 708; Emerman v City of New York, 34 AD2d 901 ; Albany Supply & Equip.
cited
Cited "see"
Mans Construction Oversite, Ltd. v. City of Peekskill
Sys. v County of Nassau, 2 AD3d 784, 786 [2003]; see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]).
cited
Cited "see"
Mans Construction Oversite, Ltd. v. City of Peekskill
Sys. v County of Nassau, 2 AD3d 784, 786 [2003]; see Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 [1982]).
cited
Cited "see"
Board of Education v. Christa Construction, Inc.
No. 4 v Grear, 57 Mise 472, affd 127 App Div 922 ; 7 Opns St Comp, 1951, at 406; see generally, Granada Bldgs, v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 ; New York Tel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitzner v. Sobol
As a final matter, contrary to petitioner’s contention on appeal, Meyer’s unauthorized disclosure of the interim report to petitioner "does not operate as a waiver by [respondent] of the FOIL exemptions” (Matter of Scaccia v New York State Div. of State Police, 138 AD2d 50, 53 ; see, Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 ).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo
(3×)
Thus, while "the possibility of estoppel against a governmental agency" is not "absolutely precluded," the doctrine is unavailable "in all but the rarest cases." Perales , 77 N.Y.2d at 130 , 564 N.Y.S.2d 1007 , 566 N.E.2d 134 . "[T]hose who deal with the government are expected to know the law, and cannot rely on the conduct of government agents contrary to law as a basis for 'manifest injustice' claims." Id. at 131 , 564 N.Y.S.2d 1007 , 566 N.E.2d 134 ; see also Granada , 58 N.Y.2d at 708 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906 , 444 N.E.2d 1325 ("[A] governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable [under esto…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk
(6×)
“Town Law § 64(6) demands that a formal resolution be passed by the Town Board and executed by the Town Supervisor in the name of the Town before a Town can be bound by any contract.” 6 Verifacts Grp., Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 267 A.D.2d 379, 379 , 700 N.Y.S.2d 75 (2d Dep’t 1999); see also Granada Bldgs., Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906 , 444 N.E.2d 1325, 1326 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Embee Corp. v. Ringler
(2×)
Turning to the merits of the petition, it is well established that “errors made by State employees cannot bind the State” (Williams Press v State of New York, 37 NY2d 434, 441 ; see also Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705 ) and that “[mjunicipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid” (Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, supra at 708).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Dayton Seaside Associates 2, L.P.
(3×)
The courts found the facts in those cases to be sufficiently egregious to overcome the principle restated by the New York Court of Appeals in Frye v. Comm’r of Finance of the City of New York, “As we have held many times, estoppel is not available against a government agency in the exercise of its governmental functions.” 62 N.Y.2d 841, 844 , 466 N.E.2d 151 , 477 N.Y.S.2d 611, 612-613 (1984); See also Granada Bldgs., Inc. v. City of Kingston, 58 N.Y.2d 705, 708 , 444 N.E.2d 1325 , 458 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1982), rehearing denied, 58 N.Y.2d 825 , 445 N.E.2d 657 , 459 N.Y.S.2d 1031 (1983) (in a c…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Piscitella v. City of Troy
Assn. v City of Troy, supra; see also, Granada Bldgs. v City of Kingston, 58 NY2d 705, 708 ; Hess v Board of Educ., 41 AD2d 151, 153 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Zanesville v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp.
In New York, the “[m]ere acceptance of benefits by the city under a contract made without authority does not estop a municipal corporation from challenging the validity of the contract and from denying liability for materials furnished or services rendered under a contract not made or ratified by a board or officer acting under authority conferred by law and in the manner prescribed by law.” (Seif v City of Long Beach, 286 NY 382, 387 .) Estoppel “may not be invoked to prevent a municipality from disclaiming the unauthorized or unlawful acts of its employees and thereby give vitality to …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Granada Buildings, Inc.
v.
City of Kingston
v.
City of Kingston
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 2, 1982.
444 N.E.2d 1325
1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3920
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Paul L. Gruner and Brian L. Findholt for appellants., Kristina A. Burns and Robert C. Weisenberger for respondent.
Cited by 58 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (3) · E.D. New York (3)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in defendants’ favor declaring that the February, 1977 resolution passed by the City of Kingston limiting the tax levy on plaintiff’s housing project is a nullity, and is not, and has never been, binding on defendants.
[*708] Municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid (Seif v City of Long Beach, 286 NY 382; Kelly v Cohoes Housing Auth., 27 AD2d 463, affd 23 NY2d 692; Albany Supply & Equip. Co. v City of Cohoes, 25 AD2d 700, affd 18 NY2d 968). Applying this principle, the city’s 1977 resolution granting respondent a partial tax exemption was a nullity since it was not authorized under the express terms of section 125 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Private Housing Finance Law, which allows municipalities to contract for such exemptions only with “any redevelopment company”; concededly, respondent was not a “redevelopment company” at that time. Furthermore, because a governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable for the unauthorized acts of its agents (Albany Supply & Equip. Co. v City of Cohoes, supra; People v Baldwin, 197 App Div 285, 291, affd 233 NY 672), we have frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency (e.g., Public Improvements v Board of Educ., 56 NY2d 850; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Center v Moore, 52 NY2d 88).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendants in accordance with the memorandum herein.