Am. Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 450 N.E.2d 230 (NY 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 450 N.E.2d 230 (NY 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2011–2017 · …the circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel at p. 718 ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1993 · …the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable, inasmuch as the performance is not 'unequivocally referable' to the alleged oral agreement. ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2009–2016 · …to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another at p. 718 ✓
88 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Merex A.G. v. Fairchild Weston Systems Inc. (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable, inasmuch as the performance is not 'unequivocally referable' to the alleged oral agreement.
cited Cited as authority (rule) 500 West 43rd Street Realty, LLC v. Thukral
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · confidence medium
Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 450 N.E.2d 230, 230 (N.Y. 1983) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company
4th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 450 N.E.2d 230, 230 (N.Y. 1983) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tech+IP Advisory, LLC v. BlackBerry Limited
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
Bartenders Sch. v. 105 Madison Co., 59 N.Y.2d 716, 718 (1983); see also CMC Transaction Svcs, LLC, 2019 WL 3496643 , at *4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 450 N.E.2d 230, 230 (N.Y. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crews v. The County of Nassau
E.D.N.Y · 2019 · confidence medium
Bartenders Sch., Inc. v. 105 context, the Court concludes that no grounds Madison Co., 59 N.Y.2d 716, 718 (1983) for equitable estoppel exist in this case, nor (emphasis added). are there any other grounds to disturb the When equitable estoppel is invoked New York Court of Appeals’ decision on against the government, the bar is even indemnification. higher.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Matter of the Estate of Edmund Felix Hennel , , Also Known as Edmund Hennel (2×)
NY · 2017 · confidence medium
American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983], affg 91 AD2d 901 [1st Dept 1983]; Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662, 663-664 [1983]; Woolley v Stewart, 222 NY 347, 350-351 [1918]; cf. Messner Vetere Berger McNamee - 8 - - 9 - No. 78 Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group, 93 NY2d 229 , 234 n 1 [1999]).2 Furthermore, the Appellate Division departments have unanimously recognized that promissory estoppel may preclude enforcement of the statute of frauds if application of the statute would result in unconscionability (see e.g.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 644 BRDY Realty Inc. v. Bleecker Tower Tenants Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Moreover, “[t]he circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation v. Allied Healthcare Products, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Equitable estoppel as a doctrine exists “to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]; see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96, 106 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Educational Center for New Americans, Inc. v. 66th Avenue Realty Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Serv., 192 AD2d 601, 602 [1993]; Carvel Corp. v Nicolini, 144 AD2d 611, 612-613 [1988]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; cf. American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. v. Concord Associates, L.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
As to equitable estoppel, plaintiff provided no proof that defendant made any representations to it that any revised definition of net win governed that phrase as it was used in the contract (see generally American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. v. Concord Associates, L.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
As to equitable estoppel, plaintiff provided no proof that defendant made any representations to it that any revised definition of net win governed that phrase as it was used in the contract (see generally American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maybaum v. Maybaum
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Further, “[t]he circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]; see Geller v Reuben Gittelman Hebrew Day School, 34 AD3d 730, 731-732 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin's Landscaping Corp. v. Bisesto
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Having acquiesced in this course of conduct for a period of approximately 10 years, during which time the plaintiff’s payments exceeded the agreed purchase price of the property and the plaintiff paid all of the expenses associated with the property such that it would suffer “unconscionable injury” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]) if specific performance was not granted, the defendant is estopped from now asserting that the contract is unenforceable (see e.g.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tosapratt, LLC v. Sunset Properties, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
While “equitable estoppel is designed ‘to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another’ ” (Stainless Broadcasting Co. v Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, L.P., 58 AD3d 1010, 1013 [2009], quoting American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]), such reliance must be justified (see Stainless Broadcasting Co. v Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, L.P., 58 AD3d at 1013 ; Bartholomew v Sterling Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stainless Broadcasting Co. v. Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, L.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The doctrine of equitable estoppel is designed “to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]; see Jokay, Inc. v Lagarenne, 138 AD2d 778, 780 [1988]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit (see American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]; Foster v Kovner, 44 AD3d 23 [2007]; NGR, LLC v General Elec.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Itskovich v. Loshak
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Serv., 192 AD 2d 601, 602 [1993]; Carvel Corp. v Nicolini, 144 AD2d 611, 612-613 [1988]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; cf. American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Geller v. Reuben Gittelman Hebrew Day School
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Finally, “[t]he circumstances set forth by plaintiff do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel” (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 717 [1983]; see WE Transp. v Suffolk Transp.
cited Cited as authority (rule) East River Savings Bank v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
American Bartenders School, Inc. v. 105 Madison Co., 59 N.Y.2d 716, 718 , 450 N.E.2d 230, 230 , 463 N.Y.S.2d 424, 424 (1983).
examined Cited as authority (rule) HAWLEY FUEL COALMART, INC. v. STEAG HANDEL, GmbH. (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Philo Smith & Co. v. USLIFE Corp., 554 F.2d 34, 36 (2d Cir.1977); American Bartenders School, supra, 59 N.Y.2d at 718, 450 N.E.2d at 230 , 463 N.Y.S.2d at 424 ; Cunnison, supra, 107 A.D.2d at 53 , *367 485 N.Y.S.2d at 275-76 ; Ginsberg, supra, 81 A.D.2d at 320-21 , 440 N.Y.S.2d at 224 ; Swerdloff v. Mobil Oil Corp., 74 A.D.2d 258, 264 , 427 N.Y.S.2d 266, 269-70 (2d Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 50 N.Y.2d 913 , 409 N.E.2d 995 , 431 N.Y.S.2d 523 (1980).
cited Cited "see" CMC Transaction Services, LLC v. IDEX Corporation
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 457 N.Y.S.2d 523 Dep't), aff'd 450 N.E.2d 230 .
discussed Cited "see" Alison Place, Ltd. v. Contowers Associates Limited Partnership
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
The lease extension agreement drafted by defendant that plaintiff seeks to enforce is void under the Statute of Frauds because it was never signed by defendant (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 91 AD2d 901 , affd 59 NY2d 716 ), and unenforceable under articles 20 and 69 of the original lease barring executory modifications unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged (General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]).
discussed Cited "see" Scutti Enterprises, Inc. v. Wackerman Guchone Custom Builders, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
Finally, plaintiff has shown that fraud, injustice and hardship will result if defendant’s promise to reconvey the optioned premises is not enforced (Walter v Hoffman, 267 NY 365, 369-370 ; Imperator Realty Co. v Tull, 228 NY 447, 453 ; see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 ).
discussed Cited "see" Greenbaum v. Weinstein
N.Y. App. Div. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, where a party claims to have relied on a promise, here the alleged promise that the defendant would never exercise the cancellation clause, the party seeking to invoke estoppel to take a contract out of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]) must demonstrate that the circumstances are such as to render it unconscionable to deny the oral promise (Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 262-263 , lv denied 50 NY2d 913 ; see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 91 AD2d 901 , affd 59 NY2d 716 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roth Young Personnel Service, Inc. v. 1500 Realty Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
We agree with the trial court that the facts here do not support plaintiff’s claim of equitable estoppel, "the alleged reliance on the oral agreement [being nothing] more than the usual situation of parties who orally agree on a deal, intending that there shall be a written contract, and then at the point of signing, one of the parties backs out” (Youz Films v Just Born, 69 AD2d 778 ; see also, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Bartenders School, Inc.
v.
105 Madison Company
New York Court of Appeals.
May 5, 1983.
450 N.E.2d 230
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Joseph Mandell and Emanuel Thebner for appellant., M. William Scherer for respondent.
Cited by 58 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel should not be applied in this case. The purpose of invoking the doctrine is to prevent the infliction of unconscionable injury and loss upon one who has relied on the promise of another (3 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 533A, at p 798; Imperator Realty Co. v Tull, 228 NY 447, 453). It cannot be said that an “unconscionable” injury to plaintiff has resulted from defendant’s refusal to execute the lease modification. Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s profit motive somehow renders its conduct inequitable would seem to be irrelevant, inasmuch as the concern is for whether defendant’s conduct has unjustly injured plaintiff. The circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel (see Ginsberg v Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 AD2d 318).

In addition, the doctrine of part performance is inapplicable, inasmuch as the performance is not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged oral agreement (e.g., Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.